• Next identify goals which need new keyword scoring from the zero outcome draft.

• Then identify goals which would need new scoring from the prooposed revisions to the zero outcome draft.

# 1 METHODS

## 1.1 Data material

We analyzed the draft targets as circulated to All Permanent Representatives and Permanent Observers to the United Nations New York in the zero draft of the post 2015 outcome document entitled “Transforming our World by 2030 - a New Agenda for Global Action” on July 2nd 2015 in letter by Sam K. Kutesa on behalf of the Co-Facilitators of the intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda Macharia Kamau Permanent Representative Permanent Mission of the Republic of Kenya to the United Nations and David Donoghue Permanent Representative Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations. The circulated draft included a number of proposed revisions to the zero draft targets. While we use the targets as circulated on June 2, we conduct supplementary to test the sensitivity of the results to the inclusio of those proposed revisions.

# 2 Word document

## 2.1 MULTIWORD TERMS

Keep higher levels of single words

### 2.1.1 APPROACHES

1) Map single words and their adjectives and simplify to single root words

1. E.g. with single root 1.1 extreme poverty - poverty.

2. E.g. with multiple context 1.3

3. Identify the challenge root: e.g. access to water (access) derived challenge of (water)

4. PREPOSITION MAPPING: Often the derived challenge (or property of the action or challenge) is linked to the root challenge through a preposition (such as “to”).

2. “of” and “for” prepositions tends to be different, often a more specific property.

5. ADJECTIVES MAPPING: A second way properties can be identified is as an adjective of a term, such as “hazardous chemicals”, the property is “hazard”.

6. Not all words in front of prepositions were scored as a property if they embodied one of the central and specific challenges of a target - such as “genetic diversity”, “premature mortality”, “epidemics”.

7. MAKE LIST OF PROPERTIES

8. FOR ROOT ANALYSIS RUN WITH ALL ITEMS AND WITH SINGLE WORD ITEMS [I.E. NO COMPOSITE TERMS].

9. RUN AN ANALYSIS WITH GOALS TOPIC KEYWORDS ADDED TO THE TARGET KEYWORDS, EITHER JUST ONE TOPIC WORD OR TOPICAL WORDS FROM THE GOAL TEXT.

10. In some cases actions can be included as aims/challenges if they have specific/technical meaning in the topical context, such as target 6.6 “protect and restore” included as “ecosystem restoration” and “ecosystem protection”.

11. Broad instruments also included in the challenges category, marked in InsturmentAsChallenge column. Run with and without these keywords in challenges category. And remember to run a network with InstrumentAsChallenge as Instrument to account for new mappings.

12. Pronouns substituted with nouns.

13. Un- substituted with positive form of word, where possible.

14. Similarly, run combinatorial mapping with and without WithPropertyAsChallenge.

15. Adjectives are nested within subject or in rare cases mapped when judged to make sense as a single mapping.

16. In root analysis choose highest order level or all levels.

1. Change scoring under Goal 2.

…OR…

2) Breakdown to single (possibly composite) root words and map not including simplification/higher order connections.

1. Simplest to implement most consistently.

2. May miss some intended/existing connection with words at other levels of specificity/generality.

1. E.g. with one root: extreme poverty - poverty

…OR…

3) Breakdown to single words and map including simplification/higher order connections based on keywords in other targets.

1. May better reflect actual relationship.

2. May risk giving extra weight to some words/terms that are more amenable to hierarchical mapping.

…OR…

4) Map complex multi-word terms with no further simplification.

1. Downside: Hard to consistently identify multi-word terms.

2. May identify extra complexity in keyword network.

3. Two versions of this mapping was implemented with and without “property” variables as part of combinations.

# 3 METHODS

A root term mapping represents the basic word components. Usually there cannot be more mappings than there are keywords identified in the term combination. When the single word of the term combination makes sense that word is mapped. When one of the single words looses its meaning when it stands alone, the combination with its other root word is mapped. In the root mapping some composite words such as “wastewater” can be decomposed into their components - waste and water (see e.g. 6_3).

-   Some root components of challenges may also be mapped as properties, etc. Run network where these words are subtracted.

-   Work environment not decomposed into "work" and "environment", but mapped as "work environment" and "work". See 8_8.

Derived word column identifies mappings to a term that are beyond the word itself.

Words with multiple meanings were attempted coded to reflect those different meanings. One example is the word “banks” which appeared both in the context of biology, finance and technology. In this case banks was specified as “biological banks”, “technological banks” and “financial banks” and the general term “banks” was avoided in the keyword mapping.

Words with specific and more general/meta-property insights, the latter such as “care”, “protection”.

• In analysis we can exclude words from one category that are common in other categories.

• COUNT NUMBER OF TIMES A TERM APPEARS IN A CLASS AND DETERMINE A SET OF CORE TERMS FROM THIS MAPPING.

• ALSO MAKE A SELECTION OF SINGLE WORD TERMS THAT CAN GO IN A GENERIC GROUP OF CHALLENGES TO BE CONTROLLED FOR.

An example of an important choice was whether to map adjectives to single terms such as “nature” from “natural” such as in “natural resources”, “natural habitat” etc. etc.. In these cases one term is mainly concerned with resources and one with habitat, but both are also to some degree and if interpreted literally concerned with nature. On the other hand, mapping adjective may reveal “hidden” linkages in the network of targets. ADDRESS HOW WE DEAL WITH THIS - RUN WITH AN WIHOUT COMMON ADJECTIVES.

The downside of mapping adjectives as the challenge is that it omits other terms that may also have to do with the adjective, in this case “nature”. Further, it may create linkages between weakly related targets.

The subject category identifies persons, geographical, biological and organizational scales and units affected or targeted by a target.

Run small variations of analysis on component subsets. Run larger variations on all components (components: subjects, challenges, instruments .).

When any doubt in mapping of words to two or more categories, both categories were mapped.

Tough targets: 12_4.

For nested actions - encourage to adopt, encourage to integrate, the nested action was mapped both as a property and an action.

Check when Actions (verbs) are coded into challenges. E.g. “regulate”, “protect”, “conserve”, “restore”, “prohibit”

Example dilemma: Should ecosystems and oceans goals be linked to natural ressources via the common word Nature.

“Economics” mapping also referring to classic concepts from economics such as “supply”, “demand”, “trade”,

## 3.1 SPECIFIC NOTES ON CONSOLIDATING MAPPINGS

1. Figure out whether jobs or employment is nested nested in the other in mappings.

## 3.2 CAVEATS IN METHODS:

1. Method is vulnerable to implying links between identical language and terminology with different meanings or similar meaning, but unrelated in terms of implementation context.

1. Such as e.g. production or productivity.

2. However these connections may have some use in terms of thinking more deeply about the actions in a systems-oriented approach. E.g. thinking deeply about approaches to productivity or what productivity means in the era of the post-2015 agenda.

# 4 ANALYSES

## 4.1 COMPARISONS:

• COMPARE NETWORK CONNECTEDNESS SCORE WITH “CHALLENGES”, “SUBJECTS”, “PROPERTY, ACTION & ACTIVITY”, “INSTRUMENTS & CONDITIONS”.

## 4.2 NETWORK MAPS:

• INSERT MAP OF TARGETS LINKED THROUGH CHALLENGES WITH GOALS WITH IMPLEMENTATION TERMS (AND ONE WITH CONDITION TERMS) HIGHLIGHTED.

• CHALLENGES NETWORK WITH TARGETS WITH A DERIVED TERM HIGHLIGHTED (MAYBE BY NUMBER OF DERIVED TERMS).

• NETWORK WITH NODE SIZE BY NUMBER OF UNIQUE MAPPINGS (ROOT AND SINGLE WORD)
• MAP SHOWING FOCUS ON FINANCE (HIGHLIGHTING TARGETS) AND DIMMING OTHER TARGETS WITHOUT MENTION OF FINANCE.

• SIMILAR FOR OTHER MAJOR THEMES.
• TOPICAL NETWORK: CHALLENGES, CONDITIONS, INSTRUMENTS

• CHARACTER NETWORK: PROPERTIES, ACTIONS

• CHALLENGE NETWORK: CHALLENGES (IN MANY FORMS)

• TOOL AND BARRIER NETWORK: INSTRUMENTS AND CHALLENGES

• “WHO” NETWORK: SUBJECTS

• MAP OF CHALLENGES OR COMBINED CATEGORIES HIGHLIGHTING WHICH TARGETS GO ACROSS GOALS OR WHICH TARGETS GO ACROSS GOAL CATEGORIES.

# 5 MINOR CORRECTIONS

## 5.1 SCORING:

In general check plural versus singular consistency of mappings.

Combinaton and root mapping are most consistent. Adjective mapping less consistent.

### 5.1.1 CHALLENGES/SUBJECTS:

• Ecosystems - has a systems perspective. Add higher order - ecology and systems.

• 9_5 - retrofit is an action not a property of the industry. Remove from challenges.

• “Production” versus “productivity” mappings. Merge into one? Which one should it be?

• “jobs” versus “employment”

• “genetic material” versus “genes”

• WHAT SHOULD BE MAPPED TO A DERIVED RESOURCE CATEGORY?

• Water, land.
• Banks - three types of banks are mentioned as challenges - biological banks, technology banks and financial banks - in the root mapping, these have NOT been mapped as “banks” , only the financial bank.

### 5.1.2 PROPERTY:

• “resilience” versus “resiliency”

• Map: quality, relevancy, decency, effective, equal, affordable

### 5.1.3 ACTIVITY:

• “special attention”

### 5.1.4 SUBJECTS:

• Need to add persons to subject score when e.g. “persons with disabilities”. Like, people. Should they have an individual higher order?

• Are countries always mapped to national?

### 5.1.5 ACTIONS:

• See 9_5 retrofit industries.

• Generic activities such as “prevention”, “monitoring”, “combatting” need to be scored in a broader actions category? Property? See e.g. target 10_5. MAPPED IN “ACTIVITY CATEGORY” which can supplement a gathering of all the verbs. Maybe by running all words through a processor or by combining categories “action”, “property”, “activity”.

### 5.1.6 INSTRUMENTS:

• When are instruments, instruments, and when are they conditions. Such as, e.g. “national definitions”, “nationally appropriate”.

• Instrument seems broader than condition. Implement column that identifies “instruments” that are also “conditions”
• When is access an instrument and when is it a property?

• Only when connected an instrumental term “by”, “through”, “to address”, “in order to” (instrument before challenge). “to address” instruments scored in separate column.
• Any mention of an international/national framework, such as targets, frameworks, goals.

• Check up on access scoring in target “2_3”.

• For targets have implementations identified. This can be interpreted to be because solutions are up to the actors (individual governments). Or it can be because individual targets fit together as solutions to each other. However, this has not been explicitly mapped out.

• Note that alphabetical targets tend to include more references to frameworks that can serve as solutions.
• General action instruments mapped in an ActionInstrument column - e.g. 6_3. Run with and without.

• Maybe the major caveat of “instruments”. In theory targets that are oriented toward achieving a great goals can also be classified as “instruments”. E.g. target 10_6 “in order to”. Can be solved via a mapping of those types of instrumental challenges in the challenges category.