This article argues that the environment was extensively incorporated into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with broad and ambitious targets, reflecting environmental concerns throughout the SDGs. Many environment‐related targets – including some of the most important ones – were placed under ‘non‐environmental’ goals. The SDGs also adopted the view that economic growth can be made environmentally sustainable using ‘decoupling’ and ‘resource efficiency’ as key technological solutions. Governments rejected a more transformative objective ‘beyond GDP’, the concept of planetary boundaries, and strong implementation mechanisms. Most disappointing, the environmental elements in many targets were not included in indicators, or the indicators lacked ambition, or were watered down. Key factors in achieving the strong and integrated approach to environment and development at the level of goals and targets were: (1) the role of new ideas on the importance of the environment and an integrated approach to sustainable development which was promoted by the science and research community; (2) a group of norm entrepreneurs, who promoted these ideas; and (3) the institutional structure and working modalities of the Open Working Group (which drafted the text of the SDGs) whose special characteristics facilitated the final agreement. The dilution of the indicators resulted from a very different institutional structure and process with different actors and from the development focused legacy of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that had not resulted in sufficient capacity for thoroughly measuring environmental concerns.

One of the next major challenges for research and policy on sustainability is setting the post-2015 Development Agenda. This challenge arises as a direct result of the formal ending of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015 and as an outcome of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). The post-2015 Development Agenda is expected to include two agendas: one on human well-being to advance the MDG targets and the other on planetary well-being, which requires a safe-operating space‖ within the Earth's life-support system. In contrast to the MDGs, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are meant to apply to both developing and developed countries and create a space for development within the stable functioning of the Earth's systems. However, what might this all look like? For answers, this paper reviews the achievements and reflections of the MDGs to date and identifies new challenges entailed in the shift of development goals from-millennium‖ to-sustainable‖. While most of the existing studies look at these two sets of issues separately, combining the two reveals two important features of the SDGs. First, SDGs need to integrate both human and planetary well-being in a goal, and second, goals, or sub-goals, need to be formulated at multiple levels, from global to local levels. While the MDGs represented no integrated goals, some of the existing proposals on SDGs include integrated goals. However, our analysis has shown that they do not present the vertical diffusion of goals. Considering both integration and diffusion in the architecture of SDGs is a remaining task.

The authors wish to make the following correction, due to a typographical error, to this paper [1]. On page 1761, the author name “Shunsuke Mangagi” should be “Shunsuke Managi”. [...]

A Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program (CSPAP) can help children be physically active for 60 min/day. Physical Education for Progress grants provided opportunities to improve physical education and physical activity programming. Purpose: This study explored stakeholders’ perspectives on the effects of a Physical Education for Progress grant on a district-wide CSPAP. Method: Stakeholders included physical educators (n = 10; K–12), administrators (n = 6), and one superintendent. Individual, semistructured interviews were used to examine how the grant affected stakeholders’ perspectives of the CSPAP. Results: The grant affected the CSPAP by providing (a) opportunities for professional development, (b) opportunities to establish a K–12 curriculum map, and (c) access to equipment and resources. Discussion: Framed in social ecological theory, intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, and community levels were influenced by the grant. Interactions between levels enabled changes in all CSPAP components, especially quality PE. Conclusion: A Physical Education for Progress grant is a successful mechanism to enhance a district-wide CSPAP.

No abstract