Next Article in Journal
Stock Assessment for Seven Fish Species Using the LBB Method from the Northeastern Tip of the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh
Previous Article in Journal
A Research Agenda for the Future of Ecological Economics by Emerging Scholars
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Characterization of SDGs towards Coastal Management: Sustainability Performance and Cross-Linking Consequences

1
Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, P.O. Box 2232 3500GE Utrecht, The Netherlands
2
Deltares, P.O. Box 177 2600MH Delft, The Netherlands
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(3), 1560; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031560
Received: 14 December 2020 / Revised: 18 January 2021 / Accepted: 20 January 2021 / Published: 2 February 2021

Abstract

:
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and associated targets focus on a wide range of global issues and can be useful in coastal challenges such as climate change and green economic growth. The aim of this study is to tailor the SDGs, as a universally recognized policy framework, to assess the sustainability performance for coastal flood protection management to enhance climate-resilient and adaptable coastal development. To operationalize this aim, the SDG Sustainability Impact Score (SDG-SIS) framework was developed. Based on system functionalities for the land–sea interface, 38 SDGs were identified in the SDG-SIS framework. Given the availability of public numeric data, only 12 SDG targets are connected with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The SDG-SIS framework was applied to two different sets of cases, including five coastline and five sand nourishment cases. This study shows that the geographical and socioeconomic characteristics of the two sets of cases should be considered in the selection of system functionalities as well as the consideration of SDG targets. Moreover, cross-linking cumulative consequences of SIS do not directly indicate the level of sustainability, but the individual SDG target data are essential to reveal the underlying details. This stresses the importance of prioritizing SDGs to serve as leverage for policymakers to optimize the climate resilience and adaptation of coastal management. The SDG-SIS framework enables the support of coastal policy by addressing long-term measures and providing a sustainable vision for future implementation.

1. Introduction

1.1. Coastal Sustainability

Coastal areas are under pressure from a multitude of direct drivers, such as an increasing demand for human settlement and sociopolitical and economic development. Next to these direct drivers, there are indirect drivers, such as climate variability, which exacerbate the degradation of natural coastal conditions. If left unregulated, impacts including flooding of urban areas due to coastal erosion [1], reduction of water quality due to pollution by hazardous waste [2,3], and air pollution due to (maritime) traffic and industries [4] will occur more frequently and intensively. Further complicating the matter, coastal regions often accommodate a high degree of biodiversity and enhance important ecological values [5]. Coastal ecosystem services, such as flood protection, biodiversity, and fisheries, may come under pressure from human actions such as the expansion of ports and coasts [6]. The ongoing trade-off between increasing populations and the utilization of coastal regions is further muddied by realized and pending climate change impacts. Preparations and adaptation strategies to cope with the associated sea-level rise, changing storm intensity, and frequency due to a changing climate are required [7,8]. Climate change is a principal driver of sustainable action plans regarding coastal protection, coastal management, and maintenance planning [9,10]. Sustainable coastal development, in view of social, environmental, governance, and economic considerations, is needed to balance the demands placed on coastal systems [11]. As a result of the growing interest in developing sustainable coasts via the inclusion of nature-based solutions (NBS), increased policy implementation is needed to reduce the impact of climate change on both the natural coastal system and socioeconomic activities [12].
In 2015, the United Nations adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) including 169 targets and 245 indicators with the aim to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure the prosperity of people [13,14,15]. The UN has called for global action to achieve the SDG targets by 2030 [16,17]. The SDGs and their targets focus on a wide range of global issues and appear to be useful for coastal topics such as climate change, economic green growth, and environmental degradation of coastal land [18,19,20]. Coastal projects developed and managed in a sustainable manner can provide national and regional benefits and have the potential to play an important role in contributing to the achievement of SDGs [21,22].
This manuscript is composed of five logically structured sections. Section 1.2 consists of a literature review on coastal flood management and provides an overview of the assessment frameworks. In Section 1.3, the subject and the problem statement are introduced as well as the aim of the study. In Section 2, the methodology is elaborated into four research steps; together, they form the SDG-SIS assessment framework. In Section 3, the findings of research are presented and organized according to the four research steps. Finally, in Section 4 and Section 5, the findings are debated and concluded.

1.2. Literature Review

1.2.1. Coastal Flood Management

The current coastal adaptation policy in the Netherlands centers on the dynamic maintenance of the base coastline via sand nourishments. These sand nourishments are a form of coastal flood management, where, in the coastal zone, wave action, currents and aeolian transport interact with dredging barges to transport the sand to the desired zone. When applied correctly, these sand embankments reduce wave energy and therefore enhance flood protection [23]. Research illustrates that sand nourishments are a cost-effective method for flood protection of the Dutch coast [24].
For the holistic evaluation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) [25], a set of indicators is used to assess the progress of ICZM implementation. Monitoring and evaluation of both the sustainability and performance of coastal management is key for building the required evidence for validation, support for wider acceptance, and inclusion of sustainable alternatives on a larger scale [26,27]. A prerequisite in developing such evidence is the identification of indicators that are practical for assessing coastal development and monitoring the progress towards sustainability [28]. Such indicators need to measure the socioeconomic, governance, and environmental considerations, requiring multi-criteria analyses and long-term planning [29,30,31]. Commitment is needed in coastal flood protection management to reduce the probability of flooding in a sustainable manner [32]. A variety of climate adaptation measures can contribute to coastal flood protection management (Table 1). Coastal regions are in a precarious balancing act, continuously leveraging the societal benefits of economic activities and the pressures of potential economic growth against weighing the threats posed by the vulnerable geographical position, compounded by climate change, and ensuring the protection of complex and high-biodiversity ecosystems. However, certain flood protection measures—such as nature-based solutions (NBS) [24,26,33,34]—have the potential to even out the scales and contribute to the strategies within the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [14].

1.2.2. Assessment of Sustainability

Schipper et al. [11] developed a methodology to assess port-(cities) via a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) related to green port policy. The methodology has the potential to be expanded and applied in an inclusive manner [11,47] as the interference of coastal structures and dredging activities on coastal processes has already been incorporated within this approach. The green port policy is based on the integration of Triple P—”People”, “Planet”, and “Prosperity”—in decision-making [45,48,49]. The monitoring of SDGs to identify climate change biodiversity vulnerability and socioeconomic interventions is well studied. Specific SDG and indicator assessment approaches related to infrastructures have been applied for smart cities [50,51], green ports or logistics [52,53], coasts [54], or the circular economy [55].
A variety of SDG assessment frameworks have been analyzed with a set of SDGs to monitor progress in different sectors [56,57,58]. Table 2 presents an overview of SDG assessment frameworks used in coastal regions for policy and research purposes in different geographical areas [12,42,43,44,54,59,60,61,62].

1.3. Problem Statement and Aim

The starting point of this study is the problem statement: ready-to-use approaches to assess the level of sustainability and transitions to coastal resilience solutions and adaptation to climate change are not readily available. Moreover, there are no approaches available to operationalize and monitor the implementation of the SDGs in the context of coastal flood protection management.
To tackle these problems, the study emphasizes coastal sustainability to stimulate adaptations for pending climate change effects, to minimize negative ecological and social impacts.
The aim of this study is to tailor the SDGs, as a universally recognized policy framework, to assess the sustainability performance for coastal flood protection management to enhance climate-resilient and adaptable coastal development [27,36,63,64,65,66]. This legitimizes research within the SDG-SIS assessment framework, demonstrating a systematical selection of an inclusive set of SDG targets. The selection is derived from the 17 SDGs and connects with selected KPIs in order to apply them to coastal flood protection management. The SDG-SIS provides a methodology to assess the level of sustainability and transitions to coastal resilience solutions and adaptation to climate change.

2. Methodology

2.1. SDG-SIS Framework

The starting point of the SDG-SIS framework is to select coastal locations. Subsequently, the SDG-SIS framework includes four main steps, starting with the 17 SDGs as input (Figure 1). Step I defines the system features which relates to the selected cases in order to consider the 169 SDG targets (Step II) to continue with the final and tailored selection of SDG-KPIs (Step III). Finally, Step IV consists of the assessment based on numeric data, with the Sustainability Impact Score (SIS) as output.

2.2. Selection of Case Studies

In this study, two sets of cases have been used to demonstrate the wide usability and the applicability of the SDG-SIS assessment framework. The two sets are distinguished according to selected biophysical characteristics of coastlines. This results in, respectively, (A) cases with varying coastal geology and (B) cases with one coastal geology.

2.3. Definition of the Functionalities (Step I)

The aim of the coastal functionalities (Step I) is to define the scope of the sustainability analysis based on the literature. To assess the sustainability performance of coastal flood protection management, it is vital to consider the functionalities consisting of system features on the land–sea interface, resulting in a combination of societal processes, the geology and coastal ecosystem, coastal protection and resilience service, and adaptation of the coastal ecosystem to climate change and accelerating sea-level rise. The following six functionalities are selected in applying the SDG-SIS framework [67,68,69]:
  • Serving coastal ecosystems to reduce flood frequency;
  • Serving socioeconomic inclusive growth;
  • Valuating biodiversity and ecosystem;
  • Regulating emission reduction;
  • Controlling coastal flooding and erosion reduction;
  • Serving wellbeing of humans.
In a matrix, the selected case studies (Step I) are, based on expert judgement, marked using the six functionalities, resulting in a consideration of relevance. The following scoring system is applied: = low level of relevance towards functionality; = high level of relevance towards functionality.

2.4. Consideration of SDG Targets (Step II)

The individual 169 targets are analyzed, with the aim to check the potential correlation with the functionalities contributing to all SDGs. In a matrix, the individual SDG target relations with coastal functionalities (step I) are considered. The “direct link”, “indirect/uncertain link”, and “no link” towards the coastal functionalities are considered and checked with the compilation of metadata for SDGs [70]. This consideration of the SDGs and their targets results in a heat map and specific SDG target selection out of the 169 targets in such a manner that it relates to coastal flood protection management.

2.5. Selection Criteria of the SDG Coastal KPIs (Step III)

Preferably, the considered relevant SDG targets—as investigated in Step II—are parameterized with data indicators (KPI) (Step III) which are relevant for coastal resilience solutions to reduce impacts of climate change on coastal flooding and to increase sustainable management of the coastal zone [24,57].
Preferably, data with a Tier 1 classification by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group (IAEG) for the implementation of the SDGs should be used; however, if not available or available but not relevant and/or measurable, other KPI data are selected in order to make the SDG targets quantitative. Therefore, a selection system was developed (Figure 2) to select the optimal SDG coastal KPIs for the purpose of the SDG targets, which preferably meet four selection criteria: availability, relevancy, accuracy, and measurability. The selection criteria as presented in Figure 2 are:
  • UN metadata available [57]. The SDG targets are selected based on the criterion A: Are UN Tier 1 metadata available? If available, go to step B; if not available, go to step D.
  • Are UN metadata relevant to coastal resilience solutions and effective adaptation strategies of the coastal infrastructure [71]? The SDG targets are selected based on the following criterion B: Is there a relationship with the coastal relevancy? If relevant, go to step C; if not relevant, go to step D.
  • Are UN metadata measurable in terms of an easy-to-estimate parameter [67]? The SDG targets are selected based on the following criteria: C: What is the specificity of the indicator for coastal assessment; Does the “specificity of the indicator” relate to its measurability in terms of an easy-to-score parameter? If measurable, go for use as target; if not measurable, go to step D.
  • Do the non-UN metadata concern accurate and relevant numeric data which are available from official statistical sources [11]? The SDG targets are selected based on the following criterion: D: Are accurate, relevant numeric data available from official statistical sources? If available, go for usable target; if not available, they are not usable for the target.

2.6. Assessment of SDG-KPI Numeric Data (Step IV)

Step IV applies the framework to five coastline cases and five sand nourishment cases (Table 1). The input for the SDG-SIS assessment analysis (Step IV) originates from numeric data on SDG-KPIs and consists of coastal relevant SDG targets (Step II) and appropriate KPIs (Step III).
The outcome of the assessment is expressed as the Sustainability Impact Score (SIS), which is presented in percentages and compared with the “no impact” SIS value, a fictive benchmark representing the ideal and most sustainable state of a coastline or sand nourishment case.
SIS   =   [ ( KPI SISa ) + ( KPI SISb ) ]
KPI SISa   = ( KPI KPI Max 1 12 )
KPI SISb   = ( 1 KPI KPI Min 1 12 )
  • The total sum of the individual SDG-KPI outcomes represents the SIS. In this study, 12 SDG-KPIs are selected (Step III) for the assessment. This range of individual SDG-KPI (in formula: KPI) can be divided into two different sub-values, respectively, SISa and SISb.
  • SISa entails the sum of SDG-KPI outcomes that represent a positive impact towards the SIS—for example, renewable energy (SDG 7.2) with KPI expressed in percentage renewable electricity share of total electricity output. Each of the individual outcomes are linearly standardized on a scale of 0–100 percent, which is generated using the individual KPI outcome divided by the best-scoring KPI. For the SISa values, the KPImax must be used.
  • SISb entails the sum of SDG-KPI outcomes that represent a negative impact towards the SIS—for example, CO2 emission reduction (SDG 9.4) with KPI expressed in CO2 emissions per capita. For SISb, the lowest-scoring KPI (KPImin) is used to linearly standardize the individual KPI outcome. Moreover, the SISb values are converted with a reciprocal value of 1. The output correlation variables from the comprehensive results can be compared with the SDG-KPIs of the no-impact benchmark coast.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

ANalysis Of VAriance (ANOVA) is used to test differences between the group means for SDG target indicators within the coastal case study. The real value data are transformed to percentages. Relationships between the variables that describe the indicators are assessed using Pearson’s rank correlation.

3. Results

3.1. Selection of Coastal Locations

The two sets of cases (Figure 3) are selected based on biophysical characteristics. This results in: (A) cases with varying coastal geology and (B) cases with one coastal geology.
  • Five cases, including coastlines with different geologies, were selected: (A1) Mississippi Delta of Louisiana, United States of America, (A2) Caribbean Delta of Colombia, (A3) South Pacific Ocean, Queensland, Australia, (A4) East Sea Mekong Delta, Vietnam, and (A5) North Sea Delta of The Netherlands.
  • Five cases, including NBS sand nourishment projects within the North Sea region in Netherlands, were selected, representing the set with the same geology: (B1) beach nourishments Domburg and (B2) Texel, (B3) combination of shoreface-beach nourishment Callantsoog, (B4) sand motor nourishment Delfland, and (B5) system nourishment Ameland Inlet.
Table 3 provides an overview of the selected cases on natural coastal defense structures and the NBS sand nourishment structures. In Appendix A, Table A1, a brief overview of the coastal flood defense cases is presented, as well as the management goals, type of coastal infrastructure, coastal climate change adaptation measures, and flood protection [72].

3.2. Definition of Functionalities (Step I)

The six identified relevant functionalities represent the features of the coastal system focusing on biophysical characteristics, human pressures, preconditions of coasts, and ecosystem services. The functionalities which have been connected to the five coastline cases (Table 4) consider the relevance of the functionalities towards the selected cases based on expert judgement. The five sand nourishment cases are covered in the coastline case “North Sea Delta of The Netherlands; North Sea (CNN)”.

3.3. Consideration of SDG Targets (Step II)

Table 5 shows the selection of 38 out of 169 SDG targets presented in the heat map. Based on expert judgement, SDG targets are selected that link to coastal functionalities. Appendix B, Table A2 shows the selection and description of the 38 SDG targets. The targets are, respectively: 1.5 (Disaster resilience), 3.9 (Pollutions and contamination), 3.d (Early warning & risk reduction), 6.3 (Water pollution), 6.6 (Water quantity and quality), 7.2 (Renewable energy), 7.3 (Energy efficiency), 8.2 (Economic productivity), 8.4 (Resource efficiency), 8.9 (Sustainable tourism), 9.1 (Resilient infrastructure), 9.4 (CO2 Emission Reduction), 9.5 (Knowledge and innovation), 11.3 (Inclusive urbanization), 11.5 (Disaster risk reduction), 11.6 (Air quality), 11.a (Development planning), 11.b (Holistic disaster risk management), 12.2 (Natural resources), 12.7 (Procurement practices), 12.8 (Flood awareness), 12.b (Monitor sustainable development), 12.c (Phasing out harmful subsidies), 13.1 (Resilience and adaptive capacity), 13.2 (Coastal erosion/accretion), 13.3 (Climate education), 13.b (Effective planning), 14.1 (Marine pollution), 14.2 (Biodiversity abundance), 14.3 (Ocean acidification), 14.4 (Sustainable fishing), 14.5 (Coastal marine conservation), 14.7 (Small island developing), 14.a (Marine technology), 14.c (Ocean conservation), 15.8 (Prevention of invasive alien species), 16.7 (Institutional capacity), 17.17 (Public–private partnerships).

3.4. Selection of the SDG Coastal KPIs (Step III)

The 38 SDG targets were verified using the selection criteria (see Section 2.5), resulting in 12 targets, respectively, 6.6, 7.2, 8.2, 8.9, 9.4, 9.5, 11.5, 11.6, 12.8, 13.2, 14.2, 16.7, with cross-links between the SDG targets (Appendix C, Table A3). This means that 26 SDGs (1.5, 3.9, 3.d, 6.3, 7.3, 8.4, 9.1, 11.3, 11.a, 11.b, 12.2, 12.7, 12.b, 12.c, 13.1, 13.3, 13.b, 14.1, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.7, 14.a, 14.c, 15.8, 17.17) were not selected since they did not meet the four decision criteria outlined in Figure 2. While some of the excluded possess a strong relation between functionality and SDG targets, the lack of numeric quantifiable data excludes them from selection in this exercise.
Synergies exist between four groups of the selected SDG targets, namely 1(a) between, respectively, disaster resilience (SDG1.5), 1(b) holistic disaster risk management (SDG11.b), 1(c) resilience and adaptive capacity (SDG13.1), and 1(d) disaster risk reduction (SDG 11.5). Similarly, between the SDG targets, 2(a) water pollution (SDG6.3), 2(b) water quantity and quality (SDG6.6), and 2(c) marine pollution (SDG14.1), between 3(a) biodiversity abundance (SDG14.2) and 3(b) coastal marine conservation (SDG14.5) as well as between 4(a) flood awareness (SDG 12.8), 4(b) effective planning (SDG13.b), and 4(c) climate education (SDG 13.3). Therefore, due to these synergies, the SDG targets 1.5, 6.3, 11.b, 13.1, 13.3, 13.d, 14.1, and 14.5 were not incorporated into the SDG-SIS framework analysis as presented in Appendix C, Table A3.
Additionally, SDG 8, 9, and 11 are represented twice by, respectively, economic productivity (SDG8.2) and sustainable tourism (SDG 8.9); CO2 emission reduction (SDG 9.4) and knowledge and innovation (SDG9.5); disaster risk reduction (SDG11.5) and air quality (SDG11.6). These double-represented SDGs may give certain coastal services more emphasis; however, this is not considered overlap. Identification of synergies which may bias and overweight certain factors in the assessment can be considered double counting; therefore, overlap is undesirable and not recommended when implementing this framework. Besides synergies between SDG targets and double scoring of SDGs, there are also missing data for relevant SDG targets. For the sand nourishment cases, the data for SDG7.2 (renewable energy) are missing in terms of reliable actual data.
In Table 6, an overview is presented of 12 selected out of the 38 relevant identified coastal SDG targets which prove to be connectable to relevant, accurate metadata and available and measurable KPI. The consideration involves explicitly linking relevant SDG targets to relevant coastal KPIs. Six selected SDG-KPIs are directly recommended by UN Tier 1 expert group IAEG-SDGs [57,84]. This study uses open source metadata derived from international organizations, respectively, World Bank, Ocean Health Index, The Global Economy, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, World Economic Forum, World Health Organization, Rijkswaterstaat, and Deltares.

3.5. SDG Assessment of Coastline Sustainability (Step IV)

In this section, the SDG assessment of international coastline cases is presented. In the next section, the SDG assessment of sand nourishment cases is presented.
The coastal flood protection cases have been assessed based on the coastal numeric data presented in Appendix D, Table A4 (Step IV). Figure 4 presents the calculated SIS of the five coastal cases. The cases of Colombia and Vietnam show the lowest values for, respectively, disaster risk reduction (SDG11.5), sustainable tourism (SDG8.9), knowledge and innovation (SDG9.5), CO2 emission reduction (SDG9.4), flood awareness (SDG12.8), and biodiversity abundance (SDG14.2) compared to the highest scores in the Netherlands, USA and Australia.
SDG 11.6 assessment of air quality shows the lowest PM2.5 concentrations in Australia and USA, and high concentrations PM2.5 in Vietnam 26.6 (µg/m3). The SDG 13.2 for coastal erosion shows for Caribbean delta of Colombia; Caribbean Sea & Pacific Ocean (CCC), Mekong delta of Vietnam, East Sea (CVM), and Mississippi delta of Louisiana USA; Gulf of Mexico (CLG) an erosion of the sandy shorelines change rate between −1.7 and −0.5 m (including measures) per year average based on Google Earth Engine analyses [98].
Figure 4 presents the SIS of the coastline cases. Results show that the cumulative consequences were the highest for Coast of Queensland, Australia; South Pacific Ocean (CQP). With the effectiveness of multiple targets, it is essential to understand and manage the complexities of a specific study area. Therefore, the results for CVM show that selected SDG targets could be used to enhance the environmental, social, and economic effects of the proposed regional coastal plans.
Figure 5 shows a boxplot comparison of SDG target indicators for the international coastline cases. The boxplots indicate various ranges within each SDG target variable. It demonstrates a high degree of distinction—based on wide data scatter—for the factors affecting sustainability for SDGs, respectively, water quantity and quality (SDG6.6), renewable energy (SDG7.2), sustainable tourism (SDG8.9), CO2 emission reduction (SDG9.4), air quality (SDG11.6), and coastal erosion/accretion (SDG13.2). The ANOVA of the SDG target indicators for the coastline cases (p < 0.05) indicated significant differences between renewable energy (SDG7.2), CO2 emission reduction (SDG9.4), knowledge and innovation (SDG9.5), air quality (SDG11.6), coastal erosion/accretion (SDG13.2), and biodiversity abundance (SDG14.2). The size of the boxes for flood awareness (SDG12.8) and biodiversity abundance (SDG14.2) indicates a minimum distinction between the cases. Statistical analyses of the SDG targets showed a moderate Pearson’s rank correlation coefficient of >0.7 (p > 0.05) for renewable energy (SDG7.2), CO2 emission reduction (SDG9.4), sustainable tourism (SDG8.9), air quality (SDG11.6), and institutional capacity (SDG16.7).

3.6. SDG Assessment of Sand Nourishment Cases (Step IV)

The sand nourishment cases have been assessed based on the coastal numeric data required from Appendix E, Table A5. Figure 6 presents the SIS of the five sand nourishment cases. Results show a similar SIS for the five cases. The fictive no impact benchmark serves as optimum SIS regarding the success or failure of policy implications. The cases of Delfland (CNH) and Ameland (CNA) show the difference for, respectively, water quantity and quality (SDG6.6), sustainable tourism (SDG8.9), knowledge and innovation (SDG9.5), and coastal erosion/accretion (SDG13.2) (Figure 6). The relation of economic productivity (SDG8.2) with the cases Texel (CNT) with high value for job market per cubic meter nourishment and the large differences between the cases CNA and CNT are noteworthy. It is not surprising that the cases CNT and CNZ show high values for sustainable tourism (SDG8.9), due to greater beach capacity available to be used by tourists. Economic productivity (SDG8.2) shows the highest value for the beach nourishment of CNT at EUR 1.2 per cubic meter. The costs associated with a cubic meter of sand, with a certain nourishment technique and fuel costs, are relevant factors to compare different nourishment strategies.
When comparing the case CNT with the cases CNZ and CNC, the subset CNZ scores low for air quality (SDG11.6) due to high levels of PM10. However, case CNH scores low on mean particulate matter PM10 per cubic meter nourishment. The cases CNH and CNA show different scores for coastal erosion/accretion (SDG13.2). Biodiversity abundance (SDG14.2) shows that a relatively high impact on the disrupted sea floor exists for nourishments CNC and CNZ. Institutional capacity (SDG16.7) shows equal relationship values.
Figure 7 shows the boxplot of SDG-KPIs for five sand nourishment cases. It demonstrates a distinction for SDGs, respectively, for water quantity (SDG6.6), economic productivity (SDG8.2), sustainable tourism (SDG8.9), coastal erosion/accretion (SDG13.2), and biodiversity abundance (SDG14.2). Flood awareness (SDG12.8) is not very distinctive between the five sand nourishment case studies. The ANOVA of the SDG-KPIs (p < 0.05) indicated significant differences between the targets: economic productivity (SDG8.2), knowledge and innovation (SDG9.5), and biodiversity abundance (SDG14.2). The statistical analyses of the relationships between the SDG targets showed a moderate Pearson’s rank correlation coefficient for seven indicators of >0.9 (p = 0.12), respectively, for water quantity and quality (SDG6.6), economic productivity (SDG8.2), CO2 emission reduction (SDG9.4), knowledge and innovation (SDG9.5), air quality (SDG11.6), flood awareness (SDG12.8), and coastal erosion/accretion (SDG13.2).

4. Discussion

4.1. SDG-SIS Framework

The aim of this study is to tailor the SDGs, as a universally recognized policy framework, to assess the sustainability performance for coastal flood protection management to enhance climate-resilient and adaptable coastal development. The results of a literature review [9,10,23,25,26,27,28,32,33,34,36,40,41,42,43,44,45,46] showed a wide range of technical and management adaptation measures towards climate adaption within coastal flood protection management. Some coastal adaptation measures have the potential to play a role in sustainable coastal management, e.g., NBS. However, identification of indicators that are practical for assessing coastal development and monitoring the progress of sustainability is required. Several studies consider the impact of integrated socioeconomic, governance, and environmental aspects of sustainability in coastal management. Several studies [12,37,42,43,44,54,59,61,62] discuss the use of SDGs to encourage the development of resilient coastal communities with an effective set of specific targets. SDG assessment models are useful and necessary to identify synergies or support the science–policy interface of SDGs [14,61,62,103,104]. The analysis of this SDG-SIS framework in comparison to other assessment frameworks (Table 2) indicates a limited connection between system functionalities and SDG targets with relevant measurable indicators to tailor the SDGs [54,105]. Moreover, a comprehensive and quantitative assessment with a focus on coastal flood management and SDG targets is missing. The SDG-SIS framework applies a wide variety of SDG targets in coastal regions, thereby underpinning the different geographical characteristics, ecosystem services, socioeconomic development, and functionalities.
Within the SDG-SIS framework, two different sets of cases were presented, a set of five international coastlines and a set of five sand nourishments in the Netherlands. These two sets were chosen to create noteworthy discussions about the applicability of the assessment SDG-SIS framework. The scope of the assessment determines the integrated choice for SDG targets. A set of SDG-KPIs for comparison on coastline level is therefore not simply the same as an assessment for comparison of sand nourishment cases. In the presented approach, one set of functionalities is used for both sets of cases (Step I). Both sets of geographical and coastal policy applications preferably require different considerations of functionalities. This suggests a need for the selection of highly relevant functionalities to avoid a misinterpretation of SDG targets, resulting in a low level of distinction. This results in two separate and different considerations of SDG targets (Step II). However, only one heat map for both the coastlines and sand nourishment cases was considered.
Comparing the five coastlines shows the development of equal initiatives to assess the socioeconomic, governance, and environmental implications with SDG targets. When selecting SDG targets through this framework, it is of note that countries with varying cultural values and a disparity in wealth characteristics may generate different relevant subsets of SDG targets. This, in combination with different principles and legislations among nations, shows the potential to prioritize SDG targets at a country policy level. Based on two separate sets of cases, namely coastline cases with different biophysical characteristics and sand nourishment cases with similar biophysical characteristics, the results indicate that the geographical scope may impact the final set of SDG-KPIs used in the assessment. A small geographical scope results in a detailed SIS but also requires specific data which are often not (yet) publicly available.

4.2. Consideration of SDGs

In this study, SDGs 2, 4, 5, and 10 are not incorporated since they did not meet the criteria for coastal-related functionalities (see Section 2.3). However, demonstrated are the coastal potential trade-offs between the SDGs in light of poverty reduction and between economic growth and environmental integrity [62]. In the end, 38 relevant coastal SDG targets were selected based on coastal functionalities. The lack of subsequent correlation of SDGs to useful public data reduced the 38 targets to 12 SDG targets, connected to useful KPIs. The consequence of leaving out 26 SDG targets is essential for the assessment; however, synergies exist for eight SDG targets, namely 1.5 (disaster resilience), 6.3 (water quality and quality), 11.b (holistic disaster risk management), 13.1 (resilience and adaptive capacity), 13.3 (climate education), 13.b (effective planning), 14.1 (marine pollution), and 14.5 (coastal marine conservation). The consequence of missing the relevant targets may have implications for the inclusiveness of the assessment. Therefore, the final set of SDG targets requires critical consideration. The potential to develop a more inclusive coastal strategy can be pursued by focusing on the availability and accessibility of data, to enhance climate-resilient and adaptable coastal management as leverage to achieve the relevant SDG targets.

4.2.1. SIS for Coastline Cases

The moderately high cumulative sustainability performance of Colombia is interesting, as it is the second lowest score compared to Vietnam (Figure 3). This can be explained mainly by the substantial green energy production (SDG7.2) of Colombia and the lower number of deaths, missing and directly affected persons due to disasters (SDG11.5) [40].
Within the group of higher scoring cases, the high levels of air emissions for the case of the Netherlands, and therefore the low sustainability performance for air quality (SDG11.6), is remarkable. This could be attributable to extensive port and industry activities condensed in the coastal region, although air quality has improved due to the implementation of environmental legislations (11.6) [106]. The low coastal erosion rate in this case results in the high sustainability performance for coastal erosion/accretion SDG13.2. The most likely explanation for the relatively high ranking is the large investments in intensive adaptation measures along the Dutch coastline [107].
The overall highest scoring case is Queensland. This case shows potential to improve its sustainability performance by investing in a higher contribution of renewable energy (SDG7.2) and reducing the emission of CO2 (SDG9.4) as well as concentrating on decreasing coastal erosion (SDG13.2).
Remarkable is the fact that the three highest scoring cases, CNN, CQP, and CLG—representing the most prosperous of the three cases—present the highest emission rates of CO2 and therefore demonstrate low sustainability performance for CO2 emission reduction (SDG9.4). This outcome pledges a stricter policy on emissions of CO2 in economically strong countries. In addition, it indicates that the cumulative SIS is rather unbalanced due to the high SIS and, at the same time, high emission rates of CO2.

4.2.2. SIS for Sand Nourishment Cases

Interestingly, CO2 emissions (SDG9.4) show relatively high concentrations of CO2 emissions/per cubic meter sand for the sand nourishment case CNZ and the lowest concentration of CO2 per cubic meter of sand for the case CNT. This disparity in nourishments can be attributed to the fact that nourishment strategies require different pumping activities, resulting in higher emissions. This indicates that SDG 9.4 is useful for the assessment of NBS, triggering CO2 emission reduction of flood defense coast maintenance solutions, included in the current Dutch Coastal Maintenance Program (Kustlijnzorg).
The cumulative SIS shows little variation between the five sand nourishment cases. There is a relation between missing data and the degree of distinction. Firstly, due to missing data (SDG 7.2, 8.2, 9.5, 11.5), cumulative SIS (data not shown) does not give an accurate and representative presentation. The next discussion section presents the importance of data availability for accurate interpretation of assessment outcomes to serve useful decision-making. Secondly, the sand nourishment cases show, for a few SDG targets, a high degree of distinction (Figure 7): these are water quantity and quality (SDG6.6), economic productivity (SDG8.2), sustainable tourism (SDG8.9), coastal erosion/accretion (SDG13.2), and biodiversity abundance (SDG14.2). This indicates that individual SDG target scores present valuable information, although not in terms of sustainability impact but as separate sustainability criteria.

4.3. Data Availability for Interpretation and Decision-Making

This study proves that for the presented SDG-SIS assessment method of the cases, there is a lack of publicly available numeric data, as only a limited number of SDG targets have a meaningful set of metadata (KPI). This may be a potential pitfall of interpretation and can lead to different conclusions about performances [108]. However, for the 12 applied SDG targets, sufficient publicly available data relating to the KPIs were found; with further adoption and understanding of such approaches, it is possible to increase the awareness of such KPIs, leading to potential monitoring and increased accessibility. When detecting data gaps in nourishment cases within SDG targets (e.g., SDG 8.2), the median should be used in order to achieve a cumulative set of SDGs. Applying SDG frameworks requires data availability for this form of quantitative and statistical analysis [60].
In total, 38 relevant SDG targets were selected for sustainable coast development; however, only 12 related indicators were weighted and aggregated to provide the SIS value as overall index. Data availability of KPIs and their causality with the targets is essential for an integral analysis and comparison. This, in turn, effectively renders 26 targets unusable, incurring the risk of losing the integral selection. Missing SDG targets has policy consequences as it can enhance the efficacy of strategies for the improvement of SDG-related indicators and encompassing integrated strategies for sustainable flood management.
The minor differences in the level of sustainability between the sand nourishment cases further highlight the importance of data accuracy and availability as it is essential to ensure the distinctiveness of the targets. In the coastline cases, six IAEG Tier 1 selected SDG-KPIs are recommended. However, for the sand nourishment cases, none of the selected KPIs were available. This observation indicates the need for accurate data for regional NBS analyses to achieve greater distinction. Additionally, it implies a need for universal data for global analyses to be able to make interoperable comparisons.

4.4. Multiple Modes of Assessment Applicability

To integrate the coastal SDGs in a relevant, measurable, and manageable way, the SDG-SIS framework is useful for the intrinsic achievement of the SDGs by policymakers and other stakeholders. The development of a systematic SDG target assessment framework, as presented in the study, showcases its potential application in different short- and long-term development pathways. Multiple trajectories can be assessed, including the analysis of the current status, evaluating measures required to reach mid-term results for sustainable deltas and socioeconomic growth and addressing visions to develop strategies for long-term results. This indicates the possibility of adaptation pathways to provide a systematic way to determine the level of sustainability to realize suitable management actions [109], allowing a multiple-time perspective on the sustainability impact in the current, mid-, and long-term future.

4.5. Coastal Flood Protection Management in an Adaptable Manner

Applying the SDG targets in the SDG-SIS framework may aid in a higher number and more uniform format of metric reporting and disclosure [110]. Countries should be stimulated by global policy directives to implement solutions with low environmental impact and reduce emissions, with incentives to support sustainable flood protection management. The crucial role of flood defense and coastal sustainability in the SDG-SIS framework supports interaction and prioritization by interpreting the outputs according to the UN 2030 Agenda. Moreover, it contextualizes the objectives within the science–policy dialogue in future perspectives of asset management towards climate resilience and adaptation.
NBS have been actively promoted by the European Commission to restore degraded ecosystems in order to secure the long-term availability of water resources and benefits from aquatic and marine ecosystems [111,112]. Transnational evidence is needed to justify investments and optimize the effectiveness of NBS. The SDG targets may be useful for regional changes in climatic parameters such as sea-level rise and also in linking the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change to make Europe more climate-resilient and to the EU Flood Directive to assess if coastlines are at risk from flooding [113,114,115,116,117].

5. Conclusions

The aim of this study is to tailor the SDGs, as a universally recognized policy framework, to assess the sustainability performance for coastal flood protection management to enhance climate-resilient and adaptable coastal development. Therefore, the SDG-SIS (Sustainability Impact Score) framework is developed to illustrate how SDGs may be connected to a relevant set of KPIs based on a geographical setting and a characterized policy topic. The SDG-SIS framework was applied on two sets of coastal cases, one distinguished by varying biophysical characteristics and one based on similar biophysical characteristics. There are five main points of conclusion that can be derived from this study. This study concludes that:
  • The SDG-SIS methodology relied on chosen functionalities; the selected SDG targets and corresponding KPIs facilitate measurement of the progress towards climate resilient coastal protection. Moreover, the SDG-SIS framework is able to systematically consider SDG targets to support an integrated assessment of coastal sustainability. Moreover, it is illustrated that the complexities in geographical and socioeconomic characteristics may influence the selection of SDG targets.
  • The connection between SDG targets and KPIs makes it possible to quantitatively and specifically measure the SDGs, resulting in the SDG-SIS for coastal flood protection management to enhance climate-resilient and adaptable coastal development. Consideration of coastal system features including ecosystem functionalities resulted in the selection of 38 out of the 169 SDG targets. Taking into account the two sets of cases—respectively, a set global coastlines and sand nourishments in the Netherlands—not all 38 targets were able to be connected with KPIs. In this study, indicator selection is dependent on the availability of public numeric data, resulting in an assessment of the case studies with only 12 SDG targets out of selected 36 SDG targets, respectively: 6.6 (water quantity and quality), 7.2 (renewable energy), 8.2 (economic productivity), 8.9 (sustainable tourism), 9.4 (CO2 emission reduction), 9.5 (knowledge and innovation), 11.5 (disaster risk reduction), 11.6 (air quality), 12.8 (flood awareness), 13.2 (coastal erosion/accretion), 14.2 (biodiversity abundance), 16.7 (institutional capacity).
  • The crucial role of adequate and specific data is demonstrated as a boundary condition for identifying priorities on early action in order to achieve the SDGs. In this study, open source metadata derived from international agencies prove to be suitable to serve as SDG-KPI. Missing SDG targets can enhance the efficacy of strategies for the improvement of SDG-related indicators and encompassing integrated strategies for sustainable flood protection management. As shown by the minor differences in the level of sustainability between the examined case studies, accurate and available data are essential to ensure a reliable level of distinctiveness of the SDG-KPIs to be able to make valuable interpretations.
  • The five NBS sand nourishment cases show a relatively small number of SDG-KPIs which turn out to be valuable for application as SIS. However, individual SDG target scores may be useful as separate SDG criteria, although not in terms of SIS. The available SDG-KPI data of the five global cases perform for some coastlines a low SIS, which indicates a weak climate-resilient and adaptable coastline. However, the SIS can be rather unbalanced due to the high SIS and at the same time, e.g., high emission rates of CO2 for some coastline cases. This concludes that for an individual SDG target, outcomes are crucial to reveal the details of appropriate interpretation of climate-resilient and adaptable coastlines. Therefore, cross-linking cumulative consequences do not directly or definitively indicate the level of sustainability. This denotes the importance of prioritizing SDGs to serve as an instrument for policymakers to optimize the climate robustness of coasts.
  • The SDG-SIS framework proves to be flexible in benchmarking progress against defined thresholds which denote the achievement of SDGs. The framework supports coastal policy by addressing long-term measures and providing a sustainable vision for future implementation. The SDG-SIS framework is a starting point for discussions on integrated policy since it shows that a set of indicators can be successfully applied to assess flood protection management, rendering it applicable on a global or regional scale for coherent integrated policymaking across sectors to enhance climate-resilient and adaptive management. Moreover, the SDG-SIS framework proves to be flexibly applicable, provided there are accurate data, for other policy domains such as asset management.
To further develop the SDG-SIS framework it is recommended to apply the framework in practice. This implies the application of coastal-related SDG targets to initiate cli-mate-resilient and adaptive policies in global and regional flood protection management.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.A.S. and G.G.J.D.; methodology, C.A.S., G.G.J.D. and B.d.V.; formal analysis, C.A.S. and G.G.J.D.; investigation C.A.S., G.G.J.D. and B.d.V.; writing—original draft preparation, C.A.S. and G.G.J.D.; writing—review and editing, C.A.S., G.G.J.D., B.d.V., B.B. and Q.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available in a publicly accessible repository. The data presented in this study are openly available in Appendix D; Table A4 and Appendix E; Table A5.

Acknowledgments

This paper benefited greatly from discussions evaluating the sustainable measures with RWS colleagues in project Coastal Genesis and EU Interreg Building with Nature and EU Interreg Cluster for Cloud to Coast Climate Change adaptation (C5a). We are grateful to Arjen Luijendijk (Deltares) for making the shorelines erosion Google Earth Engine calculations of the case studies. Moreover, many thanks for Evelien Brand (RWS) for advising with the statistical calculations. We would like to thank the collegial reviewers Alex Ziemba (Deltares and TU Delft), Heleen Vreugdenhil (Deltares and TU Delft), and Egon Baldal (RWS) as well as the external reviewers for their time devoted to this manuscript since we feel their comments helped to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Description of two sets of cases, respectively, five coastline cases and five sand nourishment cases in the Netherlands with background information on coastal activities, climate change, and type of coastal infrastructure. Abbreviations: Mississippi delta of Louisiana USA; Gulf of Mexico (CLG); Caribbean delta of Colombia; Caribbean Sea & Pacific Ocean (CCC), Mekong delta of Vietnam; East Sea (CVM), Coast of Queensland, Australia; South Pacific, Ocean (CQP), North Sea delta of The Netherlands; North Sea (CNN), Sand Motor Pilot (CNH), Ameland Inlet Pilot (CNA), Callantsoog (CNC); Domburg (CNZ), Delfland Texel (CNT).
Table A1. Description of two sets of cases, respectively, five coastline cases and five sand nourishment cases in the Netherlands with background information on coastal activities, climate change, and type of coastal infrastructure. Abbreviations: Mississippi delta of Louisiana USA; Gulf of Mexico (CLG); Caribbean delta of Colombia; Caribbean Sea & Pacific Ocean (CCC), Mekong delta of Vietnam; East Sea (CVM), Coast of Queensland, Australia; South Pacific, Ocean (CQP), North Sea delta of The Netherlands; North Sea (CNN), Sand Motor Pilot (CNH), Ameland Inlet Pilot (CNA), Callantsoog (CNC); Domburg (CNZ), Delfland Texel (CNT).
Coastal ServicesCLGCCCCVMCQPCNNCNHCNACNCCNZCNT
Coastal areaMississippi Delta in Louisiana Gulf of MexicoCaribbean Delta of ColombiaVietnam Mekong DeltaQueensland PacificNorth Sea coast in The Netherlands Netherlands, Delfland nourishmentNetherlands, Ameland Inlet nourishmentNetherlands, Callantsoog nourishmentNetherlands, Domburg nourishmentNetherlands, Texel nourishment
Metropolis in coastal areaNew OrleansCartagena, BarranquillaHo Chi Min CityBrisbaneCadzand-Den HelderThe HagueSmall villagesSmall villagesSmall villagesSmall villages
Coastal inhabitants * 1000 [118]4.6849.74617.5104.1658.2195153.72.4106.513.6
Amount of people per km23573318125046.344589614786
City population in coastal area (inhabitants * 1000) for years 2010 & 2025 [119](1.167) 1.224(950); Nd(6.166); 9.662(2.044); 2.694(6.999); 7.285NdNdNdNdNd
Environmental- & climate protection plan (Table 2)+
(2017)
+
(2017)
+
(2013)
+
(2018)
+
(2013)
+
(2010)
+
(2013)
+
(2013)
+
(2013)
+
(2013)
Coastal defense aimNatural defenses and habitatProtecting coastlinesNatural defenses; Mekong Delta Plan (MDP) has no formal statusProtecting coastlinesProtecting coastlinesDelta program Coast Innovation pilot;Delta program Coast innovation pilotPart of Delta program CoastPart of Delta program CoastPart of Delta program Coast
Marine Protection Areas (% of terr. waters) or N2000 or marine/coastal wetlands (RAMSAR)41.12.10.6/
RAMSAR
40.7/
RAMSAR
21.5/
N2000
N2000N2000N2000N2000N2000
Goal of long-term or Master PlansResilienceResilienceSafe prosperous and sustainable deltaManagement of coastal areas, vulnerable to erosionViable coastExperimentExperimentViable coastViable coastViable coast
Policy model climate changeProtection and adapting“Dutch delta approach”Socioeconomic planningCost-effective strategy managementStrategy for the coastAims set for pilotAims set for pilotStrategy for the coastStrategy for the coastStrategy for the coast
Maritime transport or port activitiesNot mentionedNational dredging planNot mentionedNot mentionedNot mentionedNot mentionedNot mentionedNot mentionedNot mentionedNot mentioned
Strategy on climate regulation, adaptation to storms and river dischargesRestoration, protection, oysterIntegrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)MDP risk by upstream developmentsNeed for adaptation to Climate Change (CC)Flood safety with spatial planICZMICZMICZMICZMICZM
Flood and coastal protectionStorm surge-based flood risk reductionApplication early warning systemMekong Delta (MD) in top 5 deltas most affected by CC-Shoreface and beach nourishmentsSand motor Innovative conceptsSystem nourishment Innovative conceptsShoreface and beach nourishmentsShoreface and beach nourishmentsShoreface and beach nourishments
Goal of urgency for actionFlood risk and hurricane disaster controlSafety of water productionSustainability and safetyCoastal hazards for beachesICZM and innovation nourishmentsInnovative and integrated solutionsInnovative and integrated solutionsICZM and innovation nourishmentsICZM and innovation nourishmentsICZM and innovation nourishments

Appendix B

Table A2. Overview of the selected 38 coastline and sand nourishment SDG targets for applying in the SDG-SIS assessment framework. Respectively, with the SDG targets: 1.5 (Disaster resilience), 3.9 (Pollutions and contamination), 3.d (Early warning & risk reduction), 6.3 (water pollution), 6.6 (Water quantity and quality), 7.2 (Renewable energy), 7.3 (Energy efficiency), 8.2 (Economic productivity), 8.4 (Resource efficiency), 8.9 (Sustainable tourism), 9.1 (Resilient infrastructure), 9.4 (CO2 Emission Reduction), 9.5 (Knowledge and innovation), 11.3 (Inclusive urbanization), 11.5 (Disaster risk reduction), 11.6 (Air Quality), 11.a (Development planning), 11.b (Holistic disaster risk management), 12.2 (Natural resources), 12.7 (Procurement practices), 12.8 (Flood awareness), 12.b (Monitor sustainable development), 12.c (Phasing out harmful subsidies), 13.1 (Resilience and adaptive capacity), 13.2 (Coastal erosion/accretion), 13.3 (Improve climate education), 13.b (Effective planning), 14.1 (Reduce marine pollution), 14.2 (Biodiversity abundance), 14.3 (Ocean acidification), 14.4 (Sustainable fishing), 14.5 (Coastal marine conservation), 14.7 (Small island developing), 14.a (Marine technology), 14.c (Ocean conservation), 15.8 (Prevention of invasive alien species), 16.7 (Institutional capacity), 17.17 (Public–private partnerships).
Table A2. Overview of the selected 38 coastline and sand nourishment SDG targets for applying in the SDG-SIS assessment framework. Respectively, with the SDG targets: 1.5 (Disaster resilience), 3.9 (Pollutions and contamination), 3.d (Early warning & risk reduction), 6.3 (water pollution), 6.6 (Water quantity and quality), 7.2 (Renewable energy), 7.3 (Energy efficiency), 8.2 (Economic productivity), 8.4 (Resource efficiency), 8.9 (Sustainable tourism), 9.1 (Resilient infrastructure), 9.4 (CO2 Emission Reduction), 9.5 (Knowledge and innovation), 11.3 (Inclusive urbanization), 11.5 (Disaster risk reduction), 11.6 (Air Quality), 11.a (Development planning), 11.b (Holistic disaster risk management), 12.2 (Natural resources), 12.7 (Procurement practices), 12.8 (Flood awareness), 12.b (Monitor sustainable development), 12.c (Phasing out harmful subsidies), 13.1 (Resilience and adaptive capacity), 13.2 (Coastal erosion/accretion), 13.3 (Improve climate education), 13.b (Effective planning), 14.1 (Reduce marine pollution), 14.2 (Biodiversity abundance), 14.3 (Ocean acidification), 14.4 (Sustainable fishing), 14.5 (Coastal marine conservation), 14.7 (Small island developing), 14.a (Marine technology), 14.c (Ocean conservation), 15.8 (Prevention of invasive alien species), 16.7 (Institutional capacity), 17.17 (Public–private partnerships).
SDG TargetGoals and Targets from the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [14]
1.5By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.
3.9By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
3.dStrengthen the capacity of all countries, in particular developing countries, for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks.
6.3By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally.
6.6By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes.
7.2By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
7.3By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency.
8.2Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation, including through a focus on high-value added and labour-intensive sectors
8.4Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, with developed countries taking the lead.
8.9By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products.
9.1Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.
9.4By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, with all countries taking action in accordance with their respective capabilities.
9.5Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries, in particular developing countries, including, by 2030, encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers per 1 million people and public and private research and development spending.
11.3By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.
11.5By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations.
11.6By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
11.aSupport positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning.
11.bBy 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels.
12.2By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
12.7Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and priorities.
12.8By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature.
12.bDevelop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products.
12.cRationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities.
13.1Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
13.2Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
13.3Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning.
13.bPromote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities.
14.1By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.
14.2By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans.
14.3Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels.
14.4By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics.
14.5By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information.
14.7By 2030, increase the economic benefits to small island developing States and least developed countries from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism.
14.aIncrease scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular small island developing States and least developed countries.
14.cEnhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which provides the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources, as recalled in paragraph 158 of “The future we want”
15.8By 2020, introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control or eradicate the priority species.
16.7Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
17.17Encourage and promote effective public, public–private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.

Appendix C

Table A3. Selection of the SDG-KPIs based on total of 38 SDG targets that will contribute to sustainable coastal functionalities (Step III). The SDG targets are selected based on the selection criteria: A: Are UN Tier 1 metadata available [57]? B: Is there a relationship with the coastal relevancy of list UN IAEG-SDGs? C: What is the specificity of the indicator for coastal assessment; Does the “specificity of the indicator” relate to its measurability in terms of an easy-to-score parameter? D: Are accurate and relevant numeric data available from official statistical sources? The questions A–D are answered for the coastline analysis. For the sand nourishment analysis, all SDGs use a different source to the UN except for target 11.5. = useful SDG-KPI for SDG-SIS assessment; = SDG-KPI not useful SDG-SIS assessment; → B = Go to question B; → C = Go to question C; → D = Go to question D.
Table A3. Selection of the SDG-KPIs based on total of 38 SDG targets that will contribute to sustainable coastal functionalities (Step III). The SDG targets are selected based on the selection criteria: A: Are UN Tier 1 metadata available [57]? B: Is there a relationship with the coastal relevancy of list UN IAEG-SDGs? C: What is the specificity of the indicator for coastal assessment; Does the “specificity of the indicator” relate to its measurability in terms of an easy-to-score parameter? D: Are accurate and relevant numeric data available from official statistical sources? The questions A–D are answered for the coastline analysis. For the sand nourishment analysis, all SDGs use a different source to the UN except for target 11.5. = useful SDG-KPI for SDG-SIS assessment; = SDG-KPI not useful SDG-SIS assessment; → B = Go to question B; → C = Go to question C; → D = Go to question D.
Selection Criteria
Selected SDG Targets Short Description(A) Availability(B) Relevancy(C) Specificity(D) AccuracySelected/
Not Selected
Motivation of Synergy
YESNOYESNOYESNOYESNO
1.5Disaster resilience→ B → C Not selectedCovered in 11.5
3.9Pollutions and contamination→ B → D Not selected
3.dEarly warning & risk reduction→ B → D Not selected
6.3Water pollution→ B → C → D Not selectedCovered in 6.6
6.6Water quantity and quality→ B → C Selected
7.2Renewable energy→ B → C Selected
7.3Energy efficiency→ B → D → D Not selected
8.2Economic productivity→ B → C → D Selecteddouble- SDG
8.4Resource efficiency → D Not selected
8.9Sustainable tourism → D Selecteddouble- SDG
9.1Resilient infrastructure→ B → D Not selected
9.4CO2 emission reduction→ B → C → D Selecteddouble- SDG
9.5Knowledge and innovation→ B → D Selecteddouble- SDG
11.3Inclusive urbanization → D Not selected
11.5Disaster risk reduction → D Selecteddouble- SDG
11.6Air quality→ B → C Selecteddouble- SDG
11.aDevelopment planning → D Not selected
11.bHolistic disaster risk management→ B → C → D Not selectedcovered in 11.5
12.2Natural resources → D Not selected
12.7Sustainable procurement → D Not selected
12.8Flood awareness → D Selected
12.bMonitor sustainable development → D Not selected
12.cPhasing out harmful subsidies → D Not selected
13.1Resilience and adaptive capacity→ B → D Not selectedcovered in 11.5
13.2Coastal erosion or accretion→ B → D Selected
13.3Improve climate education→ B → D Not selectedcovered in 12.8
13.bEffective planning → D Not selectedcovered in 12.8
14.1Marine pollution → D Not selectedcovered in 6.6
14.2Biodiversity abundance → D Selected
14.3Ocean acidification → D Not selected
14.4Sustainable fishing→ B → D Not selected
14.5Coastal-marine conservation→ B → D Not selectedcovered in 14.2
14.7Small island developing → D Not selected
14.aMarine technology → D Not selected
14.cOcean conservation → D Not selected
15.8Prevention of invasive alien species → D Not selected
16.7Institutional capacity → D Selected
17.17Public–private partnerships → D Not selected

Appendix D

Table A4. Used SDG targets with linking indicators of coastal services on sustainability in coastline cases calculated with numeric data collected in period 2015–2018. Categorization into social, environmental, and economic groups according [120,121]. The benchmark CNO is not presented. For the abbreviations, see Appendix A, Table A1.
Table A4. Used SDG targets with linking indicators of coastal services on sustainability in coastline cases calculated with numeric data collected in period 2015–2018. Categorization into social, environmental, and economic groups according [120,121]. The benchmark CNO is not presented. For the abbreviations, see Appendix A, Table A1.
Short DescriptionKPISDG TargetUnitReferenceCLGCCCCVMCQPCNN
Social service
Water quantity and qualityActual renewable water resources per capita6.6%[118]7561428145
Renewable energyRenewable electricity share of total electricity output (%)7.2%[87]13.268.236.713.612.4
Disaster risk reductionSendai Index11.5Number of deaths/missing persons affected by hydrological disasters per 100,000 inhabitants of coastal area[94]7.90787.25151.56.7 (2016)0.0
Air qualityPM2.511.6μg/m3[95]6.713.426.66.111.0
Institutional
capacity
Governance Effectiveness Index16.7%[101]9154539297
Environmental service
Coastal erosion or accretionAverage erosion or accretion rate13.2Average change rate in m/year[98]−1.58−0.52−1.710.041.12
Biodiversity abundanceOcean Health Index14.2%[88]84.280.183.394.090.5
Economic service
Economic productivityAnnual growth rate of real GDP per employed person8.2%[88]66.880.474.095.666.8
Sustainable tourismWorld Economic Forum8.9%[90]41.417.5026.560.160.8
CO2 emission reductionCarbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per capita; estimates9.41000 tons CO2/CAP km2 coast[91]16.51.71.815.49.9
Knowledge and innovationGlobal Competitiveness Index9.5%[92]5.94.34.45.25.7
Flood awarenessPublic awareness12.8%[96]2122172426

Appendix E

Table A5. Used SDG targets with linking indicators of coastal services on sustainability in sand nourishment cases in the Netherlands, calculated with numeric data collected in period 2015–2018. Categorization into social, environmental, and economic groups according [120,121]. The benchmark CNO is not presented. For the abbreviations, see Appendix A, Table A1. ND = No data.
Table A5. Used SDG targets with linking indicators of coastal services on sustainability in sand nourishment cases in the Netherlands, calculated with numeric data collected in period 2015–2018. Categorization into social, environmental, and economic groups according [120,121]. The benchmark CNO is not presented. For the abbreviations, see Appendix A, Table A1. ND = No data.
Short DescriptionKPISDG TargetUnitReferenceCNHCNACNCCNZCNT
Social service
Water quantity and qualityEutrophication6.6NO3 and NO2 (mg/l)[122]0.75 (1981)0.17
(2018)
0.49 (1978)0.10
(2018)
0.14
(2018)
Renewable energyRenewable electricity share of total electricity output (%)7.2%[87]NDNDNDNDND
Disaster risk reductionSendai Index11.5Number of deaths/missing persons affected by hydrological disasters[94]00000
Air qualityAir pollution/
MKI
11.6kg DB eq./m3[86]4.014.214.145.223.98
Institutional capacityParticipation ladder16.7Index[102]33333
Environmental service
Coastal erosion or accretionAverage erosion or accretion per nourishment13.2Average change rate in m/year[99]−36010−6−2
Biodiversity abundanceImpact of disrupted seabed m314.2m2/m3[100]0.70.712.214.55.9
Economic service
Economic productivityAnnual growth job market due project in Euro/m38.2Euro/m3[89]ND0.280.60ND1.20
Sustainable tourismAmount of Extra dry beach surface per m38.9m2/m3[38]0.070.000.080.160.22
CO2 emission reductionCarbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per nourishment9.4kg CO2 eq/m3 nourishment[86]11.011.611.414.410.9
Knowledge and innovationCitation of peer publications in SCOPUS9.5number of citations[93]2845000
Flood awarenessFlood and water awareness based12.8HF (%)[97]2.152.231.992.392.26

References

  1. Hall, J.W.; Sayers, P.; Walkden, M.; Panzeri, M. Impacts of climate change on coastal flood risk in England and Wales: 2030–2100. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Mot. Sci. 2006, 364, 1027–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  2. De Boer, J.; Van der Zande, T.E.; Pieters, H.; Ariese, F.; Schipper, C.A.; Van Brummelen, T.; Vethaak, A.D. Organic contaminants and trace metals in flounder liver and sediment from the Amsterdam and Rotterdam harbours and off the Dutch coast. J. Env. Monit. 2001, 3, 386–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Botwe, B.O.; de Schamphelaere, K.; Schipper, C.A.; Teuchies, J.; Blust, R.; Nyarko, E.; Lens, P.N.L. Integrated hazard, risk and impact assessment of tropical marine sediments from Tema Harbour (Ghana). Chemosphere 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Muller, C.O.; Yu, H.; Zhu, B. Ambient air quality in China: The impact of particulate and gaseous pollutants on IAQ. Procedia Eng. 2015, 121, 582–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  5. Schipper, C.A.; Vergouwen, S.; Bel de, B.; de Jong, M. Ports of the Future. Exploratory Study. Deltares Rep. 2015, 45, 1220137-000. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282011883_Port_of_the_Future_Exploratory_study (accessed on 1 May 2015).
  6. Bishop, M.; Peterson, C. Assessing the environmental impacts of beach nourishment. J. Sci. Math. 2005, 55, 887–896. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Kanae, S.; Seneviratne, S.I. Flood risk and climate change: Global and regional perspectives. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2013, 59, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  8. Miller, J.D.; Hutchins, M. The impacts of urbanisation and climate change on urban flooding and urban water quality: A review of the evidence concerning the United Kingdom. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2017, 12, 345–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  9. IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Edenhofer, O.R., Pichs-Madruga, Y., Sokona, E., Farahani, S., Kadner, K., Seyboth, A., Adler, I., Baum, S., Brunner, P., Eickemeier, B., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  10. van Wesenbeeck, B.K.; de Boer, W.; Narayan, S.; van der Star, W.R.; de Vries, M.B. Coastal and riverine ecosystems as adaptive flood defences under a changing climate. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 2016, 22, 1087–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  11. Schipper, C.A.; Vreugdenhil, H.; de Jong, M.P.C. A sustainability assessment of ports and port-city plans: Comparing ambitions with achievements. Transp. Res. 2017, 57, 84–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nicholls, R.J.; Hutton, C.W.; Lázár, A.N.; Allan, A.; Adger, W.N.; Adams, H.; Wolff, J.; Rahman, M.; Salehin, M. Integrated assessment of social and environmental sustainability dynamics in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna delta, Bangladesh. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2016, 183, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  13. UN. Take Action for the Sustainable Development Goals–United Nations Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 1 December 2015).
  14. UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2014; (A/Res/70/1); UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  15. Adoption of the Paris Agreement; Proposal by the President, COP21; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
  16. UN. Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators Statistical Commission. Items for Discussion and Decision: Data and Indicators for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; E/CN.3/2019/2; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  17. UN. 2019. Available online: https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/RES/74/4 (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  18. UN. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2017/TheSustainableDevelopmentGoalsReport2017.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  19. UN. Guidelines to Support Country Reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  20. UNDP. What are the Sustainable Development Goals? 2018. Available online: www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  21. UNDP. Investing in Innovative Nature-Based Solutions; UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wendling, L.A.; Huovila, A.; Castell-Rüdenhausen, M.; Hukkalainen, M.; Airaksinen, M. Benchmarking nature-based solution and smart city assessment schemes against the sustainable development goal indicator framework. Front. Env. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  23. Giardino, A.; Santinelli, G.; Vuik, V. Coastal state indicators to assess the morphological development of the Holland coast due to natural and anthropogenic pressure factors. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 87, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Stronkhorst, J.; Huisman, B.; Giardino, A.; Santinelli, G.; Santos, F.D. Sand nourishment strategies to mitigate coastal erosion and sea level rise at the coasts of Holland (The Netherlands) and Aveiro (Portugal) in the 21st century. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 156, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sustain. Measuring Coastal Sustainability: The Sustain Policy Tool. 2012. Available online: https://www.msp-platform.eu/projects/measuring-coastal-sustainability-sustain-policy-tool (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  26. Dawson, R.J.; Dickson, M.E.; Nicholls, R.J. Integrated analysis of risks of coastal flooding and cliff erosion under scenarios of long-term change. Clim. Chang. 2009, 95, 249–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  27. World Bank. Implementing Nature-Based Flood Protection: Principles and Implementation Guidance; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  28. Green, D.R.; Payne, J.L. Marine and Coastal Resource Management: Principles and Practices (Earthscan Ocean); Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017; 336p, ISBN 1849712905. [Google Scholar]
  29. UN. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies; No. E.08. II. A.2; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-92-1-104577-2. [Google Scholar]
  30. DEDUCE. Indicators Guidelines. To Adapt an Indicators-Based Approach to Evaluate Sustainable Coastal Development; DEDUCE Interreg III; 2007, 98 pg. Available online: http://www.im.gda.pl/images/ksiazki/2007_indicators_guidelines.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2007).
  31. Schanze, J.; Hutter, G.; Penning-Rowsell, E.; Nachtnebel, H.P.; Meyer, V.; Werritty, A.; Harries, T.; Holzmann, H.; Jessel, B.; Koeniger, P.; et al. Systematisation, Evaluation and Context Conditions of Structural and Non-Structural Measures for Flood Risk Re-Duction; ERA-NET CRUE: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sayers, P.; Walsh, C.; Dawson, R. Climate impacts on flood and coastal erosion infrastructure. Infrastruct. Asset Manag. 2015, 1400040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  33. Stive, M.J.F.; de Schipper, M.A.; Luijendijk, A.P.; Aarninkhof, S.G.J.; van Gelder-Maas, C.; van Thiel de Vries, J.S.M.; de Vries, S.; Henriquez, M.; Marx, S.; Ranasinghe, R. A new alternative to saving our beaches from sea-level rise: The sand motor. J. Coast. Res. 2013, 29, 1001–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Gittman, R.K.; Arkema, K.K.; Bennett, R.O.; Benoit, J.; Blitch, S.; Burks-Copes, K.A.; Colden, A.; Dausman, A.; DeAngelis, B.M.; et al. Investing in natural and nature-based infrastructure: Building better along our coasts. Sustainability 2018, 10, 523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  35. Dronkers, J.; Stojanovic, T. Coastal management and governance. In North Sea Climate Change Assessment; Colijn, F., Quante, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016; pp. 475–488. [Google Scholar]
  36. Narayan, S.; Beck, M.W.; Wilson, P. The value of coastal wetlands for flood damage reduction in the northeastern USA. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 9463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Giardino, A.; Mulder, J.; de Ronde, J.; Stronkhorst, J. Sustainable development of the Dutch coast: Present and future. J. Coast. Res. 2011, 61, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stronkhorst, J.; van Buren, R. Asset Management en Kustlijnzorg; Report 1220047-002; Deltares: Delft, The Netherland, 2015. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
  39. Rizzo, A.; Anfuso, G. Coastal dynamic and evolution: Case studies from different sites around the world. Water 2020, 12, 2829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UNDRR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
  41. Suraj, M.; Singh, R.B.; Huggel, C. Climate Change, Extreme Events and Disaster Risk Reduction: Towards Sustainable Development Goals; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lorcan, C.; Blanchard, K.; Maini, R.; Radu, A.; Eltinay, N.; Zaidi, Z.; Murray, V. Knowing what we know—Reflections on the development of technical guidance for loss data for the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction. PLoS Curr. 2018, 10, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  43. Rickels, W.; Dovern, J.; Hoffmann, J.; Quaas, M.F.; Schmidt, J.O.; Visbeck, M. Indicators for monitoring sustainable development goals: An application to oceanic development in the European Union. Earth’s Future 2016, 4, 252–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  44. Ishtiaque, A.; Masrur, A.; Rabby, Y.W.; Jerin, T.; Dewan, A. Remote sensing-based research for monitoring progress towards SDG 15 in Bangladesh: A review. Remote. Sens. 2020, 12, 691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  45. Kistenkas, F.H.; Bouwma, I.M. Barriers for the ecosystem services concept in European water and nature conservation law. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 223–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Climate Change Adaptation, Marine and Coastal Issues; Commission Staff Working Document (SWD 2013); European Commision: Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
  47. Kudale, M.D. Impact of port development on the coastline and the need for protection. Indian J. Geo-Mar. Sci. 2010, 39, 597–604. [Google Scholar]
  48. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; Capstone Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  49. Haarmann, W.; Hermans, F.; Overeem, I. Monitoring van Provinciale Duurzame Ontwikkeling. De Duurzaamheidbalans Getoetst in Vier Provincies. 2004. Available online: https://www.telos.nl/Publicaties/PublicatiesRapporten/HandlerDownloadFiles.ashx?idnv=699418 (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  50. Ahvenniemi, H.; Huovila, A.; Pinto-Seppä, I.; Airaksinen, M. What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities 2017, 60, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Essex, B.; Koop, S.H.A.; van Leeuwen, C.J. Proposal for a national blueprint framework to monitor progress on water-related sustainable development goals in Europe. Environ. Manag. 2020, 65, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  52. Schipper, C.A. Understanding the sustainable development goal approach for ports of the future. In Proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress, Panama City, Panama, 1–6 September 2019. [Google Scholar]
  53. Zimon, D.; Srouf, J.T.R. Drivers of sustainable supply chain management: Practices to alignment with UN sustainable development goals. Int. J. Qual. Res. 2019, 14, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Horan, D. National Baselines for Integrated Implementation of an Environmental Sustainable Development Goal Assessed in a New Integrated SDG Index. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schroeder, P.; Anggraeni, K.; Weber, U. The relevance of circular economy practices to the sustainable development goals. J. Ind. Ecol. 2018, 2, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  56. Lawer, E.T.; Herbeck, J.; Flitner, M. Selective adoption: How port authorities in Europe and West Africa engage with the globalizing ‘Green Port’ idea. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  57. UN. (2019) Tier Classification for Global SDG Indicators, 4 April 2019. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/Tier%20Classification%20of%20SDG%20Indicators_4%20April%202019_web.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2019).
  58. Nabyonga-Orem, J. Monitoring sustainable development goal 3: How ready are the health information systems in low-income and middle-income countries? BMJ Glob. Health 2017, 2, e000433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Le Blanc, D. Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 23, 176–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nilsson, M.; Chisholm, E.; Griggs, D. Mapping interactions between the sustainable development goals: Lessons learned and ways forward. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1489–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  61. Pedercini, M.; Zuellich, G.; Dianati, K.; Arquitt, S. Toward achieving sustainable development goals in ivory coast: Simulating pathways to sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 26, 588–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hutton, C.W.; Nicholls, R.J.; Lázár, A.T.; Chapman, A.; Schaafsma, M.; Salehin, M. Potential trade-offs between the sustainable development goals in coastal Bangladesh. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  63. Reguero, B.G.; Bresch, D.N.; Beck, M. Coastal risks, nature-based defenses and the economics of adaptation: An application in the Gulf of Mexico, USA. Coast. Eng. Proc. 2014, 1, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  64. Raymond, C.M.; Berry, P.; Breil, M.; Nita, M.R.; Kabisch, N.; de Bel, M.; Enzi, V.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Geneleti, D.; Cardinaletti, M.; et al. An Impact Evaluation Framework to Support Planning and Evaluation of Nature-Based Solutions Projects; Report Prepared by the EKLIPSE Expert Working Group on Nature-Based Solutions to Promote Climate Resilience in Urban Areas; Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: Wallingford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  65. Raymond, C.M.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Kabisch, N. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2017, 77, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dushenko, M.; Bjorbæk, C.T.; Steger-Jensen, K. Application of a sustainability model for assessing the relocation of a container terminal: A case study of Kristiansand port. Sustainability 2019, 11, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  67. IPCC. Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Organisation and United Nations Environment Programme; McCarthy, J., Canziani, O.F., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J., White, K.S., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001; 1032p. [Google Scholar]
  68. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  69. Torresan, S.; Critto, A.; Valle, M.D.; Harvey, N.; Marcomini, A. Assessing coastal vulnerability to climate change: Comparing segmentation at global and regional scales. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 3, 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. UN. Compilation of Metadata for the Proposed Global Indicators for the Review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Metadata for Goals 1 till 17. 2016. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/metadata-compilation (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  71. Gopalakrishnan, L.; Landry, C.E.; Smith, M.D. Climate change adaptation in coastal environments: Modeling challenges for resource and environmental economists. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2018, 12, 48–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  72. Climate Change Adaptation, Coastal and Marine Issues; SWD 133; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
  73. Russel, P.R. Mississippi River Diversions Could Save Louisiana’s Drowning Coast. Eng. News Record. 2018. Available online: https://www.datacenterresearch.org/news/mississippi-river-diversions-could-save-louisianas-drowning-coast/ (accessed on 9 August 2018).
  74. State of Louisiana. Coast Masterplan. Louisiana Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast; OTS-State Printing: Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 2017.
  75. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Colombia; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2014. [CrossRef]
  76. Guannel, G.; Arkema, K.; Ruggiero, P.; Verutes, G. The power of three: Coral reefs, seagrasses and mangroves protect coastal regions and increase their resilience. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0158094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  77. Preparing a Shoreline Erosion Management Plan. Guideline for Coastal Development; Department of Environment and Science, Queensland Government: Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 2018.
  78. Gebhardt, S.; Nguyen, L.D.; Kuenzer, C. Mangrove Ecosystems in the Mekong Delta–Overcoming Uncertainties in Inventory Mapping Using Satellite Remote Sensing Data. Chapter 12. In The Mekong Delta System: Interdisciplinary 315 Analyses of a River Delta, Environmental Science and Engineering; Renaud, F.G., Kuenzer, C., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  79. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Mekong Delta Plan Long-Term Vision and Strategy for a Safe, Prosperous and Sustainable Delta; MinIeW, RHDHV, Deltares, Rebel, WUR. 2013. Available online: https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2014/01/Mekong-delta-plan-Long-term-vision-and-strategy.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  80. Compass for the Coast. National Coastal Strategy; Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, Delta Commission: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2013.
  81. Van Oers, M.; Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Rijkswaterstaat, Waterdienst (RWS, WD). Objectbeheerregime Kustfundament. Beheer- en Onderhoudsstrategie Objectbeheerregime Kustfundament. 2017; 84p, (In Dutch). Available online: https://puc.overheid.nl/rijkswaterstaat/doc/PUC_143111_31/ (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  82. DHV Milieu en Infrastructuur; H+N+S landschapsarchitecten. Aanleg en Zandwinning Zandmotor Delflandse Kust: Projectnota/ MER; Provence Zuid-Holland: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2010; 372p. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
  83. Van Prooijen, B.C.; Tissier, M.F.S.; de Wit, F.P.; Pearson, S.G.; Brakenhoff, L.B.; van Maarseveen, C.G.; van der Vegt, M.; Mol, J.W.; Kok, F.; Holzhauer, H.; et al. Measurements of hydrodynamics, sediment, morphology and benthos on Ameland ebb-tidal delta and lower shoreface. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. SDG-Tracker. 2018. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/06/SDG-Data-Matrix-01.png (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  85. UNEP. 2019. Available online: http://www.unep.org/explore-topics/water/what-we-do/monitoring-water-quality (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  86. Rijkswaterstaat. What is DuboCalc? 2018. Available online: https://www.dubocalc.nl/en/what-is-dubocalc/ (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  87. World Bank. 2019. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.GDP.PUSE.KO.PP.KD (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  88. Ocean Health Index. 2018. Available online: http://www.oceanhealthindex.org/ (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  89. Andringa, T. De Kust-Meer dan Hoogwaterbescherming. Een Verkenning van de Baten van Kustlijnzorg. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2015. (In Dutch). [Google Scholar]
  90. World Economic Forum. The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2019; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019; ISBN 978-2-940631-01-8. [Google Scholar]
  91. Global Economy. 2019. Available online: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/Carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita/ (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  92. World Economic Forum. 2019. Available online: http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-index-2017-2018/competitiveness-rankings/#series=GCI.B.09 (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  93. Elsevier. 2018. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  94. Sendai Framework. The International Disaster Database. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters/CRED. 2019. Available online: https://www.emdat.be/classification (accessed on 20 January 2020).
  95. World Health Organization. 2019. Available online: http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/cities/en/ (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  96. Hyogo Framework. 2019. Available online: https://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/progress/priority5/?pid:222 (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  97. SAMR Publieksmonitor Waterpeil; Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2016; (In Dutch). Available online: https://klimaatadaptatienederland.nl/@212601/waterpeil/ (accessed on 1 July 2016).
  98. Luijendijk, A.; Hagenaars, G.; Ranasinghe, R.; Baart, F.; Donchyts, G.; Aarninkhof, S. The state of the world’s beaches. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 6641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Giardino, A.; den Heijer, C.; Santinelli, G.; van der Werf, J.J. Tools for Medium and Long-Term Prediction of Nourishment Effects; Report 1207724-003; Deltares: Delft, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  100. Van Duin, C.F.; Vrij Peerdeman, M.; Jaspers, C.J.; Bucholc, A.M.; Wessels, S.C. MER Winning Suppletiezand Noordzee 2013–2017; Report; Grontmij: Stockholm, Sweden, 2012. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
  101. World Bank. Government Effectiveness Index. 2019. Available online: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#reports (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  102. Pröpper, I.M.A.M.; Steenbeek, D.A. De aanpak van Interactief Beleid: Elke Situatie is Anders; Coutinho: Bussum, The Netherlands, 1999. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
  103. Neumann, B.; Ott, K.; Kenchington, R. Strong sustainability in coastal areas: A conceptual interpretation of SDG 14. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 12, 1019–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  104. Allen, C.; Reid, M.; Thwaites, J.; Glover, R.; Kestin, T. Assessing national progress and priorities for the sustainable development goals (SDGs): Experience from Australia. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 15, 521–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Wood, S.L.R.; Jonson, S.K.; Justin, J.A.; Brauman, K.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Fremier, F.; Girvetz, E.; Line, J.; Gordon, J.L.; Kappel, C.V.; et al. Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the sustainable development goals. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  106. Velders, G.J.; Maas, R.J.; Geilenkirchen, G.P.; de Leeuw, F.A.; Ligterink, N.E.; Ruyssenaars, P.; de Vries, W.J.; Wesselin, J. Effects of European emission reductions on air quality in the Netherlands and the associated health effects. Atmos. Environ. 2020, 221, 117109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Vousdoukas, M.I.; Ranasinghe, R.; Mentaschi, L.; Plomaritis, T.A.; Athanasiou, P.; Luijendijk, A.; Feyen, L. Sandy coastlines under threat of erosion. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2020, 10, 260–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Dang, H.A.H.; Serajuddin, U. Tracking the sustainable development goals: Emerging measurementchallenges and further reflections. World Dev. 2020, 127, 104570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  109. Butler, J.R.A.; Bohensky, E.L.; Suadnya, W.; Yanuartati, Y.; Handayani, T.; Habibi, P.; Puspadi, K.; Skewes, T.D.; Wise, R.M.; Suharto, I. Scenario planning to leap-frog the sustainable development goals: An adaptation pathways approach. Clim. Risk Manag. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  110. GRI. 2019. Available online: https://database.globalreporting.org/ (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  111. Borsje, B.W.; de Vries, S.; Janssen, S.K.H.; Luijendijk, A.P.; Vuik, V. Chapter 8. Building with nature as coastal protection strategy in the Netherlands. In Living Shorelines; The Science and Management of Nature-Based Coastal Protection; Bilkovic, D.M., Mitchell, M.M., La Peyre, M.K., Toft, D., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  112. EU. An EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change. COM 2013, 216. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0216:FIN:EN:PDF (accessed on 16 April 2013).
  113. Water Elements in the European Green Deal; Directorate-General for the Environment, European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
  114. EC. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing the Framework for Achieving Climate Neutrality and Amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 (European Climate Law); 2020/0036 (COD); EC: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  115. Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks; European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
  116. Schueler, K. Nature-Based Solutions to Enhance Coastal Resilience; Inter-American Development Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  117. Schmidt, S.; Neumann, B.; Waweru, Y.; Durussel, C.; Unger, S.; Visbeck, M. SDG14 conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development. In A Guide to SDG Interactions: From Science to Implementation; Griggs, D.J., Nilsson, M., Stevance, A.-S., McCollum, D., Eds.; International Council for Science: Paris, France, 2017; pp. 174–218. [Google Scholar]
  118. UNEP. 2020. Available online: https://open.unep.org/ (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  119. McKinsey. Global Cities of the Future: An Interactive Map. 2012. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/urbanization/global-cities-of-the-future-an-interactive-map (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  120. Vinuesa, R.; Azizpour, H.; Leite, I.; Balaam, M.; Dignum, V.; Domisch, S.; Felländer, A.; Langhans, S.D.; Tegmark, M.; Nerini, F.F. The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the sustainable development goals. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  121. Fonseca, L.M.; Domingues, J.P.; Dima, A.M. Mapping the sustainable development goals relationships. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  122. Waterinfo Database. 2020. Available online: https://waterinfo.rws.nl/#!/nav/expert/ (accessed on 20 January 2021).
Figure 1. The SDG-Sustainability Impact Score (SDG-SIS) assessment framework, using a selection of SDGs, SDG targets, and SDG indicators published in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The SDG-SIS assessment framework output shows the Sustainability Impact Score to enhance the coastal resilience and adaptation that is reached. Figure modified based on [11].
Figure 1. The SDG-Sustainability Impact Score (SDG-SIS) assessment framework, using a selection of SDGs, SDG targets, and SDG indicators published in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The SDG-SIS assessment framework output shows the Sustainability Impact Score to enhance the coastal resilience and adaptation that is reached. Figure modified based on [11].
Sustainability 13 01560 g001
Figure 2. Selection of the SDG coastal Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) using a four-step flowchart. Each of the four steps A-D are further explained in Section 2.5.
Figure 2. Selection of the SDG coastal Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) using a four-step flowchart. Each of the four steps A-D are further explained in Section 2.5.
Sustainability 13 01560 g002
Figure 3. Coastal infrastructures have been selected based on biophysical characteristics of coastlines. Respectively, Coastlines with a varying geology: (A1) Louisiana/CLG; (A2) Colombia/CCC; (A3) Australia/CQP; (A4) Vietnam/CVM; and (A5) The Netherlands/CNN; Coastline cases with one geology in the Netherlands: (B1) Domburg/CNZ; (B2) Texel/CNT; (B3) Callantsoog/CNC; (B4) Delfland/CNH and (B5) Ameland Inlet/CNA.
Figure 3. Coastal infrastructures have been selected based on biophysical characteristics of coastlines. Respectively, Coastlines with a varying geology: (A1) Louisiana/CLG; (A2) Colombia/CCC; (A3) Australia/CQP; (A4) Vietnam/CVM; and (A5) The Netherlands/CNN; Coastline cases with one geology in the Netherlands: (B1) Domburg/CNZ; (B2) Texel/CNT; (B3) Callantsoog/CNC; (B4) Delfland/CNH and (B5) Ameland Inlet/CNA.
Sustainability 13 01560 g003
Figure 4. The SIS for the five international coastline cases. Abbreviations: Mekong delta of Vietnam, East Sea (CVM); Mississippi delta of Louisiana USA; Gulf of Mexico (CLG); Caribbean delta of Colombia; Caribbean Sea & Pacific Ocean (CCC); North Sea delta of The Netherlands; North Sea (CNN); Coast of Queensland, Australia; South Pacific Ocean (CQP); No impact benchmark coast (CNO).
Figure 4. The SIS for the five international coastline cases. Abbreviations: Mekong delta of Vietnam, East Sea (CVM); Mississippi delta of Louisiana USA; Gulf of Mexico (CLG); Caribbean delta of Colombia; Caribbean Sea & Pacific Ocean (CCC); North Sea delta of The Netherlands; North Sea (CNN); Coast of Queensland, Australia; South Pacific Ocean (CQP); No impact benchmark coast (CNO).
Sustainability 13 01560 g004
Figure 5. Boxplot comparison of the selected SDG target indicators for the five international coastline cases (see Figure 2) on socioeconomic and environmental benefits (n = 60). Statistical methods are reported in Section 2.7.
Figure 5. Boxplot comparison of the selected SDG target indicators for the five international coastline cases (see Figure 2) on socioeconomic and environmental benefits (n = 60). Statistical methods are reported in Section 2.7.
Sustainability 13 01560 g005
Figure 6. The SIS values for five sand nourishment cases situated in the Netherlands. Abbreviations: Callantsoog (CNC); Ameland Inlet Pilot (CNA); Domburg (CNZ); Delfland Sand Motor Pilot (CNH); Texel (CNT) and the no impact nourishment benchmark (CNO).
Figure 6. The SIS values for five sand nourishment cases situated in the Netherlands. Abbreviations: Callantsoog (CNC); Ameland Inlet Pilot (CNA); Domburg (CNZ); Delfland Sand Motor Pilot (CNH); Texel (CNT) and the no impact nourishment benchmark (CNO).
Sustainability 13 01560 g006
Figure 7. Boxplot comparison of the selected SDG target indicators for the five sand nourishment cases in the Netherlands (see Figure 4) on socioeconomic and environmental benefits (n = 53). Statistical methods are reported in Section 2.7.
Figure 7. Boxplot comparison of the selected SDG target indicators for the five sand nourishment cases in the Netherlands (see Figure 4) on socioeconomic and environmental benefits (n = 53). Statistical methods are reported in Section 2.7.
Sustainability 13 01560 g007
Table 1. Overview of climate adaptation measures that contribute to coastal flood protection management. Table composed according to [35].
Table 1. Overview of climate adaptation measures that contribute to coastal flood protection management. Table composed according to [35].
Adaptation MeasureDescription of (Eco)System FunctionalitiesRelevance to Climate ChangeReference
Nature Based Solution flood protection Ecosystems such as salt marshes, mangroves, and vegetated fore shores may attenuate wavesAs a result, it contributes to flood protection and reduces climate’s impact on coastal erosion[10,27,32,34]
Beach-, foreshore nourishmentMorphology of a natural coastal ecosystem is in balance; interventions may interrupt this balanceNourishment will have a positive shoreline contribution to climate regulation[23,24,33]
Coastal wetland restorationWhen the functioning of the ecosystem is under pressure, a potential added value could be obtainedCreating favorable habitat circumstances for fisheries or restoration of disturbed areas[36]
Shoreline stabilizationTechnical infrastructures to protect coastal zone from erosion (e.g., seawalls)Traditional solution against flooding[37,38,39]
Disaster risk reduction managementAssessing and reducing flood riskProactive planning and capacity building for extreme events[9,27,40,41,42]
Integrated coastal managementMonitoring and evaluation of both the sustainability and performance of coastal managementProcess defines goals and actions[25,43,44]
Coastal, estuary, and riverine resource managementAssessing ecosystem changes that makes sustainability more feasibleAssessment of sea-level rise impacts[28]
Marine protected area management and conservation agreementPrecautionary approach for area of critical concernSeries of measures improves the marine protected areas’ resilience to climate change[45,46]
Table 2. Overview of international Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) assessment frameworks used to assess coastal flood protection management in geographical areas in, respectively, Asia, Africa, Europe, America, and Australia.
Table 2. Overview of international Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) assessment frameworks used to assess coastal flood protection management in geographical areas in, respectively, Asia, Africa, Europe, America, and Australia.
[12][42][43][44][54][59][60][61][62]
Policy strategyCoastal and delta strategyDisaster risk reduction strategyCoastal strategyCoastal erosion and riverbankIsland statesGlobal national strategyCoastal strategyIntegrated assessment of national strategyCoastal and delta strategy
Geographical areaBangladesh-EU coastal statesBangladeshSmall Island Developing States--Ivory CoastBangladesh
Framework(DDIEM)
Delta Dynamic Integrated Emulator Model
Sendai framework(IAEG-SDGs)
Inter-Agency and Expert Group-Sustainable Development Goals
Remote sensing(I-SDG)
Integrated-Sustainable Development Goal
Assessment OverviewAssessment OverviewTreshold21-iSDG(IAM)
Integrated Assessment Model
Type of assessmentQualitativeQuantitativeQualitativeSemi-quantitativeQuantitativeSemi-quantitativeQualitativeQualitativeQuantitative
SDG 111.5.1; 1.5.2; 1.5.3---1-11
SDG 22----2-22
SDG 33----3-3-
SDG 44----4-4-
SDG 5-----5-5-
SDG 6-----6-6-
SDG 7-----7-7-
SDG 88----8-88
SDG 9-----9-9-
SDG 1010----10-1010
SDG 11-11.b.1; 11.b.2---11-11-
SDG 12-----12-12-
SDG 131313.1.1; 13.1.2; 13.1.3---13-13-
SDG 1414-14.1; 14.2; 14.3; 14.4; 14.5; 14.6; 14.7; 14.a; 14.b; 14.c-14.1; 14.4; 14.5; 14.71414.2; 14.51414
SDG 1515--15-15-1515
SDG 16-----16-16-
SDG 17-----17-17-
Table 3. Overview and description of the two sets of cases and their coastal system characteristics used for the sustainability assessment. The table identifies the geographical location; coastal types; type of coastal flood protection and type and size (in situ m3) nourishment. Case studies are divided into two sets, global coastlines (set 1) and sand nourishments (set 2).
Table 3. Overview and description of the two sets of cases and their coastal system characteristics used for the sustainability assessment. The table identifies the geographical location; coastal types; type of coastal flood protection and type and size (in situ m3) nourishment. Case studies are divided into two sets, global coastlines (set 1) and sand nourishments (set 2).
Geographical LocationCoastal TypesFlood Protection TypeNourishment Type/Size (m3)Reference
Coastline cases (set 1)
Mississippi delta of Louisiana USA; Gulf of Mexico (CLG)Wetlands, salt marches, mangroves Nature-based flood protection; Sediment carried by the river floodsNone[73,74]
Caribbean delta of Colombia; Caribbean Sea & Pacific Ocean (CCC)Hard structures; Rocks or cliffs fronted by sandy beaches and break wallsShoreline stabilization; Rocks or cliffs fronted sediment supplied by erosionNone[75]
Coast of Queensland, Australia; South Pacific Ocean (CQP)Hard structures and coral and mangroves, and sandy beaches with dune landscapesNature-based flood protection; Barrier reef and mangrove forestsNone[76,77]
Mekong delta of Vietnam; East Sea (CVM)Hard structures and nature- based mangrove wetland, salt marches structure; Tidal DeltaNature-based flood protection; Sedimentation and mangrovesNone[78,79]
North Sea delta of The Netherlands; North Sea (CNN)Sandy coastline with urban agglomeration beach, foreshore nourishmentYearly 12,000,000[80]
Sand nourishment cases (set 2)
The Netherlands; North Sea; Domburg (CNZ)Sandy coastlineBeach nourishment 350,000[81]
The Netherlands; North Sea; Texel (CNT)Sandy coastlineBeach nourishment 1,150,000[81]
The Netherlands; North Sea; Callantsoog (CNC)Sandy coastlineShoreface nourishments and beach nourishment 1,000,000 and 400,000[81]
The Netherlands; North Sea; Delfland Sand Motor Pilot (CNH)Sandy coastline Mega nourishment19,200,000[82]
The Netherlands; North Sea; Ameland Inlet Pilot (CNA)Sandy coastlineInlet system nourishment 5,000,000[83]
Table 4. Consideration of relevance of the functionalities for the five coastline cases. Abbreviations: Mississippi delta of Louisiana USA; Gulf of Mexico (CLG); Caribbean delta of Colombia; Caribbean Sea & Pacific Ocean (CCC), Mekong delta of Vietnam; East Sea (CVM), Coast of Queensland, Australia; South Pacific, Ocean (CQP), North Sea delta of The Netherlands; North Sea (CNN). Legend: 0 = no level of relevance on the service; = low level of relevance on the service; = high level of relevance on the service; * The sand nourishment cases are covered in the coastline case CNN.
Table 4. Consideration of relevance of the functionalities for the five coastline cases. Abbreviations: Mississippi delta of Louisiana USA; Gulf of Mexico (CLG); Caribbean delta of Colombia; Caribbean Sea & Pacific Ocean (CCC), Mekong delta of Vietnam; East Sea (CVM), Coast of Queensland, Australia; South Pacific, Ocean (CQP), North Sea delta of The Netherlands; North Sea (CNN). Legend: 0 = no level of relevance on the service; = low level of relevance on the service; = high level of relevance on the service; * The sand nourishment cases are covered in the coastline case CNN.
Coastal Functionalities/System FeaturesCLGCCCCVMCQPCNN *
A. Serving coastal ecosystems to reduce flood frequency
B. Serving socioeconomic inclusive growth
C. Valuating biodiversity and ecosystem
D. Regulating emission reduction
E. Controlling coastal flooding and erosion reduction
F. Serving wellbeing of humans
Table 5. Consideration of the SDG targets (Step II) presented in heat map based on individual SDG target relations with coastal functionalities. In total, 169 SDG targets are considered and a total of 38 SDG targets are scored. The coastal functionalities are: (A) Serving coastal ecosystems to reduce flood frequency; (B) Serving socioeconomic inclusive growth; (C) Valuating biodiversity and ecosystem; (D) Regulating emission reduction; (E) Controlling coastal flooding and erosion reduction and (F) Serving wellbeing of humans. = link between functionality and target; = indirect or uncertain link between functionality and target; = no link between functionality and target; (*) = SDG target and selected indicator used for the SDG-SIS sustainability assessment.
Table 5. Consideration of the SDG targets (Step II) presented in heat map based on individual SDG target relations with coastal functionalities. In total, 169 SDG targets are considered and a total of 38 SDG targets are scored. The coastal functionalities are: (A) Serving coastal ecosystems to reduce flood frequency; (B) Serving socioeconomic inclusive growth; (C) Valuating biodiversity and ecosystem; (D) Regulating emission reduction; (E) Controlling coastal flooding and erosion reduction and (F) Serving wellbeing of humans. = link between functionality and target; = indirect or uncertain link between functionality and target; = no link between functionality and target; (*) = SDG target and selected indicator used for the SDG-SIS sustainability assessment.
SDGSDG-TargetShort DescriptionABCDEF
11.5Disaster resilience220022
2- 000202
33.9Pollutions and contamination000202
33.dEarly warning & risk reduction001202
4- 202000
5- 020211
66.3Water pollution020200
6.6 *Water quantity and quality020212
77.2*Renewable energy221101
7.3;Energy efficiency122002
88.2 *Economic productivity221122
8.4Resource efficiency221212
8.9 *Sustainable tourism221112
99.1Resilient infrastructure120022
9.4 *CO2 emission reduction220022
9.5 *Knowledge and innovation001202
10- 022102
1111.3Inclusive urbanization222222
11.5 *Disaster risk reduction022001
11.6 *Air quality121112
11.aDevelopment planning101112
11.bHolistic disaster risk management022102
1212.2Natural resources021202
12.7Procurement practices211022
12.8 *Flood awareness212221
12.bMonitor sustainable development111222
12.cPhasing out harmful subsidies222222
1313.1Resilience and adaptive capacity012202
13.2 *Coastal erosion/accretion222122
13.3Improve climate education012201
13.bEffective planning022001
1414.1Reduce marine pollution102001
14.2 *Biodiversity abundance022001
14.3Ocean acidification022001
14.4Sustainable fishing012201
14.5Coastal marine conservation002002
14.7Small island developing020012
14.aMarine technology120011
14.cOcean conservation220022
1515.8Prevention of invasive alien species000202
1616.7 *Institutional capacity000202
1717.17Public–private partnerships001202
Table 6. Overview of Step III, the selected 12 coastal SDG-KPIs applied for global coastlines and sand nourishment cases; for applying in the coastal defense assessment with connectivity to the SDG targets 6.6, 7.2, 8.2, 8.9, 9.4, 9.5, 11.5, 11.6, 12.8, 13.2, 14.2, 16.7.
Table 6. Overview of Step III, the selected 12 coastal SDG-KPIs applied for global coastlines and sand nourishment cases; for applying in the coastal defense assessment with connectivity to the SDG targets 6.6, 7.2, 8.2, 8.9, 9.4, 9.5, 11.5, 11.6, 12.8, 13.2, 14.2, 16.7.
SDG TargetShort
Description
Coastline SDG-KPI Data AvailabilitySand Nourishment SDG-KPI Data Availability
6.6Water quantity and qualityProtect and restore water-related ecosystems, including coast, wetlands, rivers, aquifers, and lakes; it brings risks related to water quality based on nutrient pollution by eutrophication [85]Contribute to concentration NO3 pollution with impact on eutrophication (Conc. NO3 and NO2 in mg/L) [86]
7.2Renewable energyContribute by the energy transition to a less carbon-intensive system, accompanied by cost reductions [87]No accurate and relevant open source data available from official international associations.
8.2Economic productivityShows jobs in the higher economic level of productivity by incline of growth rate of real GDP per employed person [88]The budget per nourishment is standardized on the total amount spent on personnel divided by the total volume of the nourishment [89]
8.9Sustainable tourismContributes to coastal tourism and has no negative impact on the degree of tourism and recreation [90]Confirms the relation between beach size and number of visitors. To parameterize the index for the nourishment, the average extra beach width is multiplied by the length of the nourishment and then standardized over the different cases, divided by the total nourishment volume, and the extra (dry) beach surface area is the result [38]
9.4CO2 emission reductionConsiders coastal intervention when CO2 emission is limited by increased resource-use efficiency and adoption of clean, environmentally friendly technologies [91]With the NBS analysis, CO2 is expressed as kg CO2 equivalent per cubic meter of sand nourishment, calculated through DuboCalc [86]
9.5Knowledge and innovationContribute by SDG indicator Global Competitiveness Index World Economic Forum [92]With NBS analysis, it relates the number of scientific articles published on the different nourishments as the total number of times that these peer-reviewed publications in turn are cited in SCOPUS [93]
11.5Disaster risk reductionContributes to the vulnerability to climate-related extreme events which have effect on the directly affected persons attributed to disasters [94]Contributes to the vulnerability to climate-related extreme events which have effect on the directly affected persons attributed to disasters [94]
11.6Air qualityLink to resilience and sustainably reduces the environmental impacts in consideration of the population exposure to air pollution of PM2, PM10, or 1.4-DB-eq./m3 [95]The toxic emission profile (kg 1,4-DB equivalent) is calculated with DuboCalc based on fuel consumption), during the whole lifecycle [86]
12.8Flood awarenessHyogo Framework implement the global disaster risk reduction framework [96]Water awareness expressed as public monitoring program [97]
13.2Coastal erosion or accretionRelate to coastal erosion, indicated as distribution as of sandy shorelines change rate as m/yr average based on Google Earth Engine (GEE) analyses [98]Sand nourishment erosion change rate is based on MorphAn modeling to calculate the reduced meters of land loss or average erosion rate on location of the nourishment [99]
14.2Biodiversity abundanceConsiders biodiversity both in short and long term for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) when does not harm habitats and species based on Ocean Health Index [88]Effect of the nourishments on the sand source locations have been analyzed based on disrupted sea floor habitat. The designated source locations for sand nourishments are past the depth of −20 m NAP, the value of a m2 seabed on the source locations is set equal for the sand nourishments. As a result, the surface area of the source location is chosen and divided by the total volume of the nourishment as a standardization [100]
16.7Institutional capacityFocus on sustainability when it is implemented, managed, and maintained in a society with a positive and high human and institutional capacity, based on Government Effectiveness Index [101]Public–private–citizen participation is used and expressed as a tool named the “participation ladder” [102]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Schipper, C.A.; Dekker, G.G.J.; de Visser, B.; Bolman, B.; Lodder, Q. Characterization of SDGs towards Coastal Management: Sustainability Performance and Cross-Linking Consequences. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1560. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031560

AMA Style

Schipper CA, Dekker GGJ, de Visser B, Bolman B, Lodder Q. Characterization of SDGs towards Coastal Management: Sustainability Performance and Cross-Linking Consequences. Sustainability. 2021; 13(3):1560. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031560

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schipper, Cor A., Gerben G.J. Dekker, Beer de Visser, Bas Bolman, and Quirijn Lodder. 2021. "Characterization of SDGs towards Coastal Management: Sustainability Performance and Cross-Linking Consequences" Sustainability 13, no. 3: 1560. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031560

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop