Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Research article

Creating an indicator system for the United Nations Sustainable

Development Goals in communities and municipalities:
Application and analysis in an Austrian case study
Matthias Maldet ∗ , Georg Lettner, Christoph Loschan, Daniel Schwabeneder,
Hans Auer
Institute of Energy Systems and Electrical Drives, Energy Economics Group (EEG), Technical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Sustainability indicators should implement the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
Sustainable development (UN SDGs). Indicators in literature often consider large sets of actions and are thus complex
Policy actions in application. Therefore, this work derives energy- and resource-related SDG indicators for
Communities
communities and municipalities with low complexity. Moreover, this work analyzes three
Indicator establishment
Optimization model
different policy paths to promote SDG contribution. The policy paths consider SDG target settings
and two different incentive schemes in the form of penalties and investment subsidies. The
indicators and policy actions are applied in two case studies for communities and municipalities
in Austria. Therefore, an optimization model that considers the case study setups, SDG targets and
policy actions is developed. The modeling approach shows applicability and positive contribution
to sustainable development by indicators. Moreover, the results show the applicability of the
three policy paths. Implementing the target-setting path directly leads to the desired SDG targets
and provides insights into the costs for target achievement. The incentive scheme paths also
lead to selected targets, but they require a cost assessment of the provided incentive schemes. A
combination of both incentive schemes leads to the lowest costs. However, policymakers should
implement a workflow that considers all three policy paths for policy action settings.

1. Introduction

The transition to a sustainable future is often proposed to accompany sustainable development in the present. The European Union
(EU) defined sustainable development as meeting present needs while also ensuring, that future generations have no restrictions in
meeting their needs. All three sustainability pillars, including social, environmental and economic pillars, must be accomplished
simultaneously [1]. Therefore, the EU implemented a sustainable development strategy in 2016, that considers critical challenges
such as climate change, clean energy and sustainable consumption and production. Moreover, the United Nations (UN) established
a set of 17 goals for sustainable development in 2015: The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) [2]. The
17 goals provide a roadmap for the global implementation of sustainable development. The UN 2030 agenda further describes
communities and local authorities as significant actors in implementing sustainable development [3]. Therefore, this work focuses
on the application of UN SDG indicators in communities and municipalities, intending to provide policy incentives for decentralized

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Maldet).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19010
Received 22 May 2023; Received in revised form 24 July 2023; Accepted 4 August 2023
Available online 9 August 2023
2405-8440/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Fig. 1. SDG indicator establishment and community/municipality application.

sustainable development. The 17 UN SDGs consist of goals that depend on social setups and plans that can be achieved by sustainable
operations and technology introduction. This work focuses on the six energy- and resource-related SDG and their interaction with
community and municipality operations and investments.
The UN 2030 agenda includes 169 potential actions for SDG contribution. Furthermore, much research focuses on SDG contribu-
tion and implementation. However, the majority proposes large sets of indicators and possible actions, leading to the high complexity
in the application. Therefore, this work introduces an easy applicable indicator system for the energy- and resource-related SDGs.
Each SDG is represented by one percentage value to make the indicators simple and comparable. The SDG indicator definition is
provided based on a literature review of currently existing indicators. These are analyzed and adapted for a simple application in
communities and municipalities. The developed indicators are applied to an existing community and an existing municipality in
Austria by developing an optimization model. These analyses focus on the interaction between community and municipality tech-
nology investment and SDG contribution. Moreover, the studies include SDG impact assessments of different policy actions. Finally,
the applicability and policy impact of the proposed SDG indicators for communities and municipalities are compared. Fig. 1 presents
the workflow in the paper.
The core objectives of the analyses are to define an easily applicable SDG indicator system that provides incentives for technology
investment and sustainable operation and to determine policy implications based on the indicators that can further promote sustain-
able development. The proposed SDG indicator system and different policy actions are applied in a community and a municipality.
Therefore, an optimization model for both setups is developed to address the following research questions:

• How can the energy- and resource-related UN SDGs be established and applied in communities and municipalities?
• How do community and municipality technology portfolios and operations affect UN SDG contribution?
• Which policy actions can be established to improve UN SDG contribution?
• Which UN SDG incentive schemes are most efficient in communities and municipalities?

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 shows existing work on sustainability in communities and municipalities. Section 3
presents a literature review on exiting SDG indicator systems and the development of an indicator system for energy- and resource-

2
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

related SDGs. Section 4 shows the application of the proposed indicators in case studies for a community and a municipality. Section 5
discusses the significant results. Finally, Section 6 concludes the work by offering policy implications.

2. State of research

This section presents the state of research on sustainable development in communities and municipalities. Section 2.1 provides
an overview of existing literature on sustainable operations in communities and municipalities. Section 2.2 presents work on sus-
tainability indicators, and Section 2.3 focuses on work on sustainability benchmarking. Section 2.4 concludes the chapter with the
progress beyond the state of research.

2.1. Sustainable communal operation

The UN 2030 agenda [3] proposes the importance of regional and local government involvement in sustainable development.
Thus, sustainable operation in communities and municipalities is a widely discussed topic. Zahra and Badeeb [4] proposed that
central governments should strengthen local governments in promoting decentralization and Ahmad and Satrovic [5] stated that de-
centralization can promote sustainability. Karger and Hennings [6] showed that decentralized electricity generation could positively
contribute to climate protection. However, Fenton and Gustafsson [7] stated that the responsibilities and role of local actors still need
clarification. Atisa et al. [8] found that local authorities lack the abilities and policies to promote a specific sustainable behavior of
consumers. According to Lombardi et al. [9], the improvement in building efficiency and the promotion of tools for environmental
management are fundamental actions that local authorities must address. Moreover, Ranängen et al. [10] analyzed the implementa-
tion of sustainable development by organizations, with biodiversity, climate action and freshwater as significant aspects that must
be prioritized.
Technology can be an efficient means to further promote sustainable development in communities and municipalities. Kuznetsova
et al. [11] examined a trend to decentralized waste treatment plants and Wang et al. [12] found green investment as an important
factor in influencing sustainability. Leigh and Lee [13] examined that a transition from centralized water solutions to decentralized
solutions like rainwater harvesting and greywater utilization can address urban challenges. Furthermore, Capodaglio et al. [14]
introduced new development paradigms that can promote local energy and material recovery. Therefore, Thiam [15] found that
support mechanisms could increase renewable energy deployment in remote areas.
In addition to investment, management of energy and resources can promote sustainable development. Thus, existing research
focuses on the analysis of energy management systems. Engelken et al. [16] found that municipalities aiming for self-sufficiency
can play a significant role in energy system transition. Karavas et al. [17] introduced a decentralized energy management system
that is technically feasible and economically competitive. Community energy management can further improve energy management
practices. Elkazaz et al. [18] introduced a hierarchical peer-to-peer management method. Hoicka et al. [19] found that energy com-
munities can contribute to a democratic energy transition and Romero-Rubio and de Andrés Díaz [20] examined the high impact
of renewable electricity owned by energy communities. Moreover, resource management methods are widely analyzed. Mesjasz-
Lech [21] stated that municipalities should focus on waste reduction by creating closed cycles of materials. Jouhara et al. [22]
examined substantial waste reduction in collection and transportation by introducing waste management systems. However, Pe-
riathamby [23] stated that the implementation of waste management requires impact from political authorities. Not only waste but
also water must be managed in communities and municipalities. Wang and Davies [24] and Zhuang and Zhang [25] investigated
different water management methods.

2.2. Sustainability indicators

Sustainable investment, energy and resource management can contribute to sustainable development. Bortoluzzi et al. [26] em-
phasized the role of multicriteria decision processes in achieving sustainable development. However, indicators must be defined to
measure sustainability. Drago and Gatto [27] found that the establishment of policies is a crucial aspect of sustaining renewable
energy. However, Gunnarsdottir et al. [28] examined the need for robust indicators to develop sustainable policy goals. Ameen
and Mourshed [29] stated that sustainability assessment should be performed with the local context. Verma and Raghubanshi [30]
introduced a multiple-step framework to define appropriate indicators. Analyses from Evans et al. [31] considered indicators, such as
electricity price, greenhouse gas emission, energy and water consumption. Ngan et al. [32] found significant indicators in public ac-
ceptance and economic performance improvement and Ghenai et al. [33] introduced environmental, economic, resource, technology
and social indicators as their five key indicators. Sheinbaum-Pardo et al. [34] considered governmental reasons and thus put a higher
weight on economic issues than on social and environmental issues. However, Afshari et al. [35] found significant implementation
challenges in potential conflicts between indicators.
Not only sustainability but also energy and resource management should be assessed by indicators. Kylili et al. [36] identified
the key performance indicator approach as the most valuable assessment tool. Razmjoo et al. [37] performed an energy manage-
ment assessment based on environmental impacts, renewable energy, energy access and policy. Moreover, Kourkoumpas et al. [38]
introduced simple and scalable indicators, including infrastructure energy and emission reductions. Bertoldi and Mosconi [39] and Sa-
farzadeh et al. [40] further assessed energy policy indicators concerning energy-saving promotion. According to Bertanza et al. [41],
waste management indicators should consider the characteristics of the collected waste and environmental performance. Rodrigues
et al. [42] proposed considering social, economic and environmental indicators in waste management. Bezerra et al. [43] stated

3
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

that better coordination and problem identification are crucial for water management. Li et al. [44] examined water management
practices, with low water efficiency being the most significant factor in limiting sustainable water utilization.
Special indicator systems can also be applied in communities and municipalities. According to Neves and Leal [45], indicators
should be used at the beginning of the planning process to assess the current situation. However, Klemm and Wiese [46] found that
not all sustainability indicators are applicable in urban energy systems. Moreover, Braulio-Gonzalo et al. [47] found that sustain-
ability concepts vary between regions. Oliver-Solà et al. [48] analyzed municipal sustainability contribution by assessing municipal
facilities’ energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Alonso et al. [49] proposed that cities must implement a circular
economy as a sustainability indicator. Caldas et al. [50] aggregated indicators for local government sustainability performance as-
sessment. Furthermore, Teixeira et al. [51] developed indicators for municipal water management, establishing four categories,
namely, environmental, social, technical and governance categories.

2.3. Sustainability benchmarking

The concept of sustainability indicators can be extended to sustainability benchmarking programs by comparing consumers’ sus-
tainable development with sustainability indicators. According to Chung [52], benchmarking might encourage poorly performing
consumers to improve their performance. Moreover, Roth and Rajagopal [53] stated that robust benchmarking programs might im-
prove resource allocation for energy efficiency programs. Dubey et al. [54] emphasized that sustainability benchmarking is becoming
increasingly crucial in industry. Moreover, Şiir Kılkış [55] stated that decision-makers can use benchmarking results as a planning
tool. Trigaux et al. [56] developed benchmarking recommendations for the building sector with a transparent and user-friendly
system being a significant aspect. Furthermore, Lazar and Chithra [57] implemented benchmarking systems for worst and best build-
ing performances and Xuchao et al. [58] developed a regression-based benchmarking model. Ding and Liu [59] compared three
benchmarking approaches, and they propose that policymakers should apply multiple benchmarking tools. Welling and Ryding [60]
identified life cycle assessment as an effective method for environmental impact measurement and Hollberg et al. [61] found that
life cycle assessment-based benchmarks have been used as certification systems on the building level.
Many existing programs already implement benchmarking for technologies, communities or municipalities. The EU taxon-
omy classifies sustainability contribution and investment by developing technical screening criteria [62]. Therefore, the taxonomy
provides sustainability indicators in the form of the technical screening criteria. The Austrian energy certificate is an energy bench-
marking tool that classifies building energy efficiency. It is thus a simple benchmarking tool for buildings [63]. The certificate is
derived from EU energy certificates [64]. A similar approach is implemented in the EU energy labels. These labels classify the energy
efficiency of products and devices [65]. Furthermore, community and municipality benchmarking programs are implemented in dif-
ferent EU countries. The “e5” program in Austria supports municipalities in sustainable operation and rewards sustainable behavior
with a five-star certification benchmarking system. Moreover, the program proposes potential actions for a transition to a higher
certification [66–68]. The network of energy cities is a similar program that supports concept exchange between associated cities
and municipalities [69].

2.4. Novelties and progress beyond the state of research

Sustainable development in communities and municipalities is a widely researched topic. Existing work focuses strongly on
sustainability indicators and benchmarking programs. However, sustainability indicators are often extensive and complex, thus
leading to a high level of complexity in community or municipality applications. Many developed sustainability indicators also do
not directly refer to the UN SDGs. Moreover, the policy impacts of SDG indicator applications are often not analyzed. This work
addresses the complexity of UN SDG indicator systems by deriving a new, easy applicable indicator system. The implementation and
applicability of the proposed indicator system are tested in community and municipality case studies. Furthermore, this research
provides policy implications based on the proposed indicator system and case studies.
The novelties and progress beyond state of research include the following aspects:

i) This research develops a UN SDG indicator system for communities and municipalities that is transparent and easily applicable.
ii) The method combines the proposed indicator system with an optimization modeling approach.
iii) This research applies and analyzes the proposed system in case studies for a community and a municipality.
iv) The analyses assess different policy actions for UN SDG contribution improvement.

3. Sustainable development goals: community and municipality classification

This section introduces a review of SDG contribution and indicator systems. Section 3.1 presents the state of research on SDG
application in communities and municipalities. Section 3.2 provides an overview of existing SDG indicator systems. Finally, Sec-
tion 3.3 proposes a new SDG indicator system applicable to communities and municipalities. The nomenclature in Table 6 describes
the mathematical symbols used in the indicator definition.

4
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

3.1. UN SDGs in communities and municipalities

Section 2.2 introduced existing sustainability indicators, with some applicable in communities and municipalities. However, most
of those indicators do not directly refer to the UN SDGs. As this work focuses on an appropriate SDG indicator system with a joint
base, this section analyzes literature that focuses explicitly on SDG contribution.
Szetey et al. [70] stated that local communities must focus on local relevant indicators for SDG achievement. Therefore, they
introduced pathways, including people, property and planet. Quiroz-Niño and Ángeles Murga-Menoyo [71] found that training
sustainability competencies is mandatory for achieving SDGs. Bardal et al. [72] stated the importance of local authorities in goal
implementation. According to Krantz and Gustafsson [73], municipality involvement in SDG achievement is crucial because of
the municipal range of responsibilities. This was further emphasized by Teixeira et al. [74], as they proposed that municipalities
become leaders in engaging SDG contribution. Salvia et al. [75] further highlighted the importance of local governments in resource
management. However, Ślusarczyk and Grondys [76] underlined that municipalities should belong to economic zones to achieve
sustainable development. Moreover, Fenton et al. [77] stated that municipal energy strategy development depends on the choice of
communicative approaches. Han et al. [78] found that policymaking depends on indicators’ importance. However, Meyar-Naimi and
Vaez-Zadeh [79] examined the importance of considering national visions in policymaking.
Bain et al. [80] stated that most countries could generate estimates for SDG6 (clean water and sanitation), but SDG12 (responsible
consumption and production) was less reported. Therefore, Razali et al. [81] suggested fostering household waste separation behavior
and Pujara et al. [82] emphasized the importance of minimizing waste landfilling. Moreover, Santika et al. [83] examined energy
efficiency measures as an essential aspect of contributing to SDG7 (clean and affordable energy). Dioha and Emodi [84] examined
significant energy demand reductions by providing modern energy access. Fan et al. [85] found energy consumption dependency
on socioeconomic factors and physical conditions. However, Fraisl et al. [86] stated that information on citizen contribution to SDG
indicators must be included.

3.2. Quantification of the UN SDG

Focusing on SDG contribution is common to the introduced analyses. However, no clear indicators or targets are defined. There-
fore, this section focuses on SDG quantification. The primary focus is set on energy- and resource-related SDG.
According to Hák et al. [87], indicators should consider policy relevance, a link to the target and applicability. Therefore, Miola
and Schiltz [88] analyzed three different indicator methods, namely, mean evaluation, distance measure and progress determination.
Swain and Yang-Wallentin [89] introduced indicator equations to identify SDG contribution. Costanza et al. [90] linked the SDG
with a defined well-being index and Kubiszewski et al. [91] applied linear regression to determine indicators. Furthermore, Mischen
et al. [92] performed a community assessment to define indicators.
Even though much literature focuses on SDG quantification, the design of an SDG indicator system requires reference to widely
applicable goals and norms. The UN SDGs propose 17 goals with 169 practical actions to reach these goals [2]. The energy- and
resource-related goals are SDG6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG7 (clean and affordable energy), SDG11 (sustainable cities and
communities), SDG12 (responsible consumption and production), and SDG13 (climate action). Moreover, SDG1 (no poverty) must
be considered to keep the financial load on consumers at an acceptable level. The UN recognized regional economic integration in
their 2030 agenda [3]. They proposed that regional levels can provide valuable opportunities for peer learning. Moreover, the 2030
agenda focuses on the application of sustainable actions for each goal. However, the number of actions might result in the high
complexity in the application.
The ISO norm 37120 for sustainable cities and communities [93] introduces core indicators and supportive indicators to measure
sustainable development. The norm categories energy, environment, finance, solid waste, wastewater and water and sanitation can
be relevant for energy- and resource-related SDGs. According to Moschen et al. [94], ISO 37120 does not specify ideal actions for
sustainable development regarding the UN SDGs. Therefore, the norm should be seen as an additional sustainability indicator rather
than a direct recommendation for sustainable development according to the UN SDGs.
Furthermore, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) proposes an action plan for countries to
define actions leading to UN SDG contributions [95]. Therefore, they introduce a set of targets for each UN SDG [96]. However,
the targets are defined for national policies and are therefore more suitable for national UN SDG indication. Jossin and Peters [97]
introduced an SDG indicator system that is applicable in municipalities. They raised 120 indicators, that cover all SDGs. However,
similar to the UN SDG actions [3], the proposed actions by Jossin and Peters [97] might lead to high complexity.
Tables 1 and 2 present an overview of the energy- and resource-related SDG indicators that are proposed by the [3], [93], [96]
and Jossin and Peters [97]. In the comparison, identified relevant indicators in the proposed systems are considered.

3.3. Introduction od the UN SDG indicator system

The proposed indicator systems in Tables 1 and 2 show differences in particular SDG targets. SDG11 can be widely interpreted,
which can be seen as the sources considered waste management and multiple other energy- and resource-related indicators. SDG12
is also not strictly limited to waste by all sources. Moreover, different indicators for the different SDGs are not comparable to each
other, making an overall comparable indicator system hardly applicable. Therefore, this paper proposes an adaptation of the proposed
indicators in Tables 1 and 2 to a newly-defined SDG indicator system. The indicator system is designed to be applicable in sustainable
communities and cities, especially for application in Austria. However, different indicators for both communities and municipalities

5
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Table 1
Comparison of different proposed sustainable development indicators, SDG 1, 6 and 7.

SDG UN indicators ISO 37120 OECD Jossin and Peters

1: No poverty Proportion of population Percentage of population Poverty rate Gini coefficient

below poverty level living in poverty

6: Clean water and sanitation Degree of integrated Percentage of population Share of Drinking water
water resources with potable water supply population without consumption, percentage
management, proportion and wastewater treatment wastewater of treated wastewater
of wastewater flows collection

7: Affordable and clean energy Renewable energy share Percentage of energy Renewable Renewable energy in
in final energy derived from renewable electricity share in energy consumption,
consumption sources electricity municipal investment in
generation development

Table 2
Comparison of different proposed sustainable development indicators, SDG 11, 12 and 13.

SDG UN indicators ISO 37120 OECD Jossin and Peters

11: Sustainable cities and Proportion of solid waste ISO 37120 is established Municipal waste Combination of multiple
communities managed for sustainable city and generated categories including
community indication energy and resources

12: Responsible consumption National recycling rate, Number of recycled Recycling rate of Drinking water
and production installed renewable waste, reduced waste or municipal waste consumption, energy
energy generation landfilled waste consumption, waste
capacities generation, recycling rate

13: Climate action Total GHG emissions per Total GHG emissions per Production based CO2 emissions in private
year capita CO2 emissions household and municipal
facilities

are implemented because of their different scopes. Furthermore, to make the indicators comparable, each indicator is defined as a
percentage value. A higher value indicates better contribution to a particular SDG. The goal is to implement an easily applicable SDG
indicator system that reflects sustainable development contribution and provides appropriate incentives.
SDG1 (no poverty) 𝑖nopovertySDG1 is equally indicated in communities and municipalities. It is defined as the cost reduction that can
be achieved by sustainable technology implementation. For providing an SDG1 indicator, total cost improvement 𝑐 tot compared with
business-as-usual costs 𝑐 tot,BaU , for the same community or municipality without sustainable technology installation are considered.
This benchmark is required to provide a percentage value for the indicator. The target is described in Equation (1).
𝑐 tot,BaU − 𝑐 tot
𝑖nopovertySDG1 = (1)
𝑐 tot,BaU
cleanwater
SDG6 (clean water and sanitation) 𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑚 SDG6
is indicated differently in communities and municipalities. Communities (see
greywater
Equation (2)) consider the amount of reduced 𝑣reduced
𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 and reused water in the form of greywater 𝑣𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑐𝑜𝑚 in relation to the total
water demand 𝐷𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑐𝑜𝑚 .
greywater
cleanwaterSDG6 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑐𝑜𝑚 + 𝑣𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑐𝑜𝑚
𝑣reduced
𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑚 = (2)
𝐷𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑐𝑜𝑚
cleanwater
The SDG6 indicator for municipalities 𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑛 SDG6
extends the enumerator to recovered water from sewage treatment 𝑣recovered
𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑚𝑢𝑛 ,
which can be used for water demand coverage. Equation (3) presents the indicator.
greywater
cleanwaterSDG6
𝑣reduced
𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑚𝑢𝑛 + 𝑣𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑚𝑢𝑛 + 𝑣𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑚𝑢𝑛
recovered
𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑛 = (3)
𝐷𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑚𝑢𝑛
The SDG7 (clean and affordable energy) indicator is also implemented differently in communities and municipalities. The indi-
cleanenergySDG7
cator 𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑚 considers the share of renewable energy procurement 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
ren , in relation to the total energy procurement 𝑞 tot
𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
.
elgrid
Energy procurement includes PV generation 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
PV , electricity grid procurement 𝑞
𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
, heat pump heat generation 𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑚
HP and dis-
dhgrid
trict heat procurement 𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑚 . For the renewable share of grid procurement, the percentage of renewable energy in the electricity
𝐹𝑒𝑙𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑 and heat mix 𝐹𝑑ℎ𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑 are considered. Moreover, electricity feed-in 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
ren ren feedin is subtracted in the enumerator to consider efficient

energy utilization and to facilitate the local use of renewable energy. Equations (4) to (6) present the indicator for communities.
elgrid
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
ren
= 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
PV
+ 𝐹𝑒𝑙𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑
ren
⋅ 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚 + 𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑚
HP

dhgrid
(4)
+ 𝐹𝑑ℎ𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑
ren
⋅ 𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑚 − 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
feedin

6
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

elgrid dhgrid
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
tot
= 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
PV
+ 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚 + 𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑚
HP
+ 𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑚 (5)

cleanenergySDG7
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
ren
𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑚 = (6)
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
tot

cleanenergySDG7
Municipal SDG7 indicators 𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑛 additionally consider recovered electricity 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
wastecomb and heat 𝑞 wastecomb from waste in-
𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
biogene
cineration (see Equations (7) to (9)). However, in the enumerator, only the biogenic share of waste 𝐹𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 is counted as renewable.
Furthermore, exhaust heat 𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑚𝑢𝑛
exhaust is considered in the enumerator to efficiently utilize locally generated heat in municipalities.

elgrid
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
ren
= 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
PV
+ 𝐹𝑒𝑙𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑
ren
⋅ 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛 + 𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑚𝑢𝑛
HP

dhgrid
+ 𝐹𝑑ℎ𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑
ren
⋅ 𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑚𝑢𝑛 − 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
feedin (7)
biogene
+ 𝐹𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 ⋅ (𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
wastecomb
+ 𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑚𝑢𝑛
wastecomb
) − 𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑚𝑢𝑛
exhaust

elgrid dhgrid
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
tot
= 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
PV
+ 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛 + 𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑚𝑢𝑛
HP
+ 𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑚𝑢𝑛
(8)
+ 𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
wastecomb
+ 𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑚𝑢𝑛
wastecomb

cleanenergySDG7
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
ren
𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑛 = (9)
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
tot

SDG11 is not represented by a single indicator, but rather considers a combination of all other energy- and resource-related
indicators. The concept of communities and municipalities applying an SDG indicator system is automatically a contribution to
SDG11. Each indicator is weighted by its contributions, compared to the overall contribution (see Equation (10)). All weighted
indicator contributions sum up to 100%, as presented in Equation (11).
SDG,k
𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑑
𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑤
SDG,k
=∑ ∀𝑘 ∈  (10)
SDG,j
𝑗∈𝑆𝐷𝐺𝑠 𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑑
∑
𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑤
SDG,k
= 100% (11)
𝑘∈

SDG12 is indicated equally in communities and municipalities by 𝑖consprodSDG12 . The indicator considers the ratio of reduced and
recycled waste to the total accruing waste, as presented in Equation (12).
recycled
𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 + 𝑚reduced
𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒
𝑖consprodSDG12 = (12)
𝑀𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒
total

Finally, the SDG13 indicator 𝑖climateactionSDG13 considers the emissions 𝑒𝑚tot compared with the BaU scenario emissions 𝑒𝑚tot,BaU of
the community or municipality, similar to SDG1 (see Equation (13)).
𝑒𝑚tot,BaU − 𝑒𝑚tot
𝑖climateactionSDG13 = (13)
𝑒𝑚tot,BaU
The paper considers the proposed indicators for further analyses and discussions. Table 3 summarizes the developed SDG indica-
tors.

4. Community and municipality analyses

This section applies the proposed SDG indicator system in case studies for an existing community and municipality. Section 4.1
presents the case study methodology and Sections 4.2 and 4.3 introduce the setups and results of the community and municipality
analyses.

4.1. Case study, materials and method

The method is applied in the case studies for the community and municipality. The case study parameters are summarized in
the Appendix. Both, communities and municipalities, are analyzed by optimization models, representing the energy- and resource-
related operations and investments in the systems. Therefore, the optimization modeling framework “Resource Utilization in Sector
Coupling” (RUTIS) [98] is extended to particular SDG target achievement functionalities. A validation of the model is also presented
in [99]. The model implements a cost minimization, represented in Equation (14).

𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝑧) = 𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝑐 tot ) = 𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝑐 procurement + 𝑐 operational + 𝑐 invest ) (14)

Procurement costs 𝑐 procurement
represent the costs for external energy or resource procurement and operational costs 𝑐 operational
represent costs for technology operation. Both are multiplied by the amount of procured or operated energy and resources. Investment
costs 𝑐 invest are considered with annuities 𝛼𝑙 , multiplied by the installed technology capacity 𝑥𝑙 , whereas the capacity is determined

7
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Table 3
Proposed SDG contribution indicators for communities and municipalities.

SDG Community indicator Municipality indicator

1: No poverty Community cost reduction compared to BaU Municipality cost reduction compared to BaU
in % (Equation (1)) in % (Equation (1))

6: Clean water and sanitation Percentage of reduced water and reused Percentage of reduced water, reused
greywater in relation to community water greywater and recovered water from sewage
demand (Equation (2)) treatment in relation to municipality water
demand (Equation (3))

7: Affordable and clean energy Community share of renewable energy Municipality share of renewable energy
generation, excluding fed-in energy, in % generation, including the biogenic share of
(Equation (6)) waste incineration and excluding fed-in
energy, in % (Equation (9))

11: Sustainable cities and communities Combination impact of other SDGs in Combination impact of other SDGs in
communities municipalities

12: Responsible consumption and production Community share of reduced and recycled Municipality share of reduced and recycled
waste to accruing waste (Equation (12)) waste to accruing waste (Equation (12))

13: Climate action Community emission reduction compared to Municipality emission reduction compared to
BaU in % (Equation (13)) BaU in % (Equation (13))

by the optimization. Annuities consider the weighted average cost of capital 𝑊 𝐴𝐶𝐶 and the amortization period of the technologies
𝑁𝑙 Equations (15) and (16) present the model implementation.

(1 + 𝑊 𝐴𝐶𝐶)Nl ⋅ 𝑊 𝐴𝐶𝐶
𝛼𝑙 = ∀𝑙 ∈  (15)
(1 + 𝑊 𝐴𝐶𝐶)Nl − 1
𝑐𝑙invest = 𝛼𝑙 ⋅ 𝑥𝑙 ⋅ 𝐶𝑙invest ∀𝑙 ∈  (16)
Basic model constraints include conversion relations, technology limitation, balance rules for all sectors and storage equations.
Detailed RUTIS model constraint equations are presented in [99].
The case study applies three different policy paths, where various policy actions are applied in the community and municipality.
All three policies aim to improve sustainable development and contribution to the UN SDG, whereas the particular policy actions
differ depending on the path. Fig. 2 presents the workflow of the policy paths.
Path 1 represents strict target setting, where particular SDG contribution targets must be strictly achieved by technology in-
stallation and sustainable behavior. Analyses in Path 1 include sensitivity analyses on SDG target achievements, whereas changes
in technology portfolios and total costs are examined. Sensitivity analysis for a simultaneous increase in all SDG targets leads to
different limits for different SDGs. Thus, if an SDG target is at its limit, the goal is set to the maximum possible value for the follow-
ing sensitivity values. The SDG targets are implemented as additional model constraints. The dual variables of the constraints are
extracted to analyze the impact and costs of the limitations, particularly target achievement. The constraints are derived from the
indicator system presented in Table 3. However, it must be considered that SDG6 and SDG7 indicators are implemented differently
in communities and municipalities. Equations (17) and (18) present the model implementation of SDG6 for communities and munic-
ipalities. Equations (19) and (20) present the model constraints for SDG7 while Equation (21) presents the implementation of SDG12
in the model. Finally, Equation (22) implements SDG13 in the model. 𝑇 𝐺 describes a predefined SDG target and 𝜆 represents the
dual variables. Terms for water or waste reduction are not implemented in all analyses and can be considered additional sensitivities.
greywater
𝑣reduced
𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑐𝑜𝑚 + 𝑣𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑐𝑜𝑚 cleanwaterSDG6 cleanwaterSDG6
≥ 𝑇 𝐺𝑐𝑜𝑚 ∶ 𝜆𝑐𝑜𝑚 (17)
𝐷𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑐𝑜𝑚
greywater
𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑚𝑢𝑛 + 𝑣𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑚𝑢𝑛 + 𝑣𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑚𝑢𝑛
𝑣reduced recovered
cleanwaterSDG6 cleanwaterSDG6
≥ 𝑇 𝐺𝑚𝑢𝑛 ∶ 𝜆𝑚𝑢𝑛 (18)
𝐷𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑚𝑢𝑛
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
ren
cleanenergySDG7 cleanenergySDG7
≥ 𝑇 𝐺𝑐𝑜𝑚 ∶ 𝜆𝑐𝑜𝑚 (19)
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
tot

𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
ren
cleanenergySDG7 cleanenergySDG7
≥ 𝑇 𝐺𝑚𝑢𝑛 ∶ 𝜆𝑚𝑢𝑛 (20)
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
tot

recycled
𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 + 𝑚reduced
𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒
≥ 𝑇 𝐺consprodSDG12 ∶ 𝜆consprodSDG12 (21)
𝑀𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒
total

𝑒𝑚tot,BaU − 𝑒𝑚tot
≥ 𝑇 𝐺climateactionSDG13 ∶ 𝜆climateactionSDG13 (22)
𝑒𝑚tot,BaU
The policy actions in Path 2 use the dual variables to create penalties for actions leading to lower SDG targets. Moreover,
technologies that are installed to avoid penalties can be identified in Path 2. Path 3 considers policy actions in the form of investment

8
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Fig. 2. Case study policy paths.

subsidies for the recognized technologies. Additional costs in both paths, namely, penalty costs for consumers in Path 2 and subsidy
costs for the funding agency in Path 3, are considered within the system boundaries, as subsidies are paid by consumers’ taxes.
Therefore, for the evaluation, penalties and subsidies are considered cost loads for the consumers. Finally, the aim of the analyses is
to compare the three paths in the community and municipality setups.

4.2. Community analyses

The community analyses in this section present the investigation setup in Section 4.2.1, the results of the studies for target setting
(Path 1) in Section 4.2.2 and the results for incentive schemes (Paths 2 and 3) in Section 4.2.3. Additional results of the analyses are
presented in the Appendix.

4.2.1. Community investigation setup

The sustainable community “Gemeinschaftlich Wohnen die Zukunft” (GeWoZu) [100], consisting of 12 households, is considered
for the community analyses. Consumers in the community are aggregated. Fig. 3 presents the investigation setup in the community.
The model performs investment decisions in PV and batteries in the electricity sector. Excess electricity can be fed into the grid
and the remaining demand is covered by electricity grid procurement. The heat sector considers investment decisions in heat pumps

9
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Fig. 3. Case study setup for community analyses.

and district heat connections, whereas heat can be procured from an external heat source for the latter. Potable water is usually
procured from pipelines. However, investment decisions in separate greywater systems and sensitivities for water reduction are
additionally considered for the water sector. The waste sector includes competition between waste disposal and recycling, which are
implemented with different costs. Similar to the water sector, waste reduction is considered as sensitivity.

4.2.2. Politically driven goal achievement in communities

This section presents the results of the analyses for SDG target policy actions (Path 1). First, single SDG contribution target
sensitivity analyses are presented, followed by a complete sensitivity analysis on all SDGs.
Without constraints, the total costs can be reduced by 21% compared to the business-as-usual (BaU) setup because of the financial
benefits due to clean technology installation. SDG6 (clean water and sanitation) and SDG12 (responsible consumption and produc-
tion) are not targeted, whereas SDG7 (clean and affordable energy) and SDG13 (climate action) reach 73% and 42%, respectively.
Thus, even without particular policy actions, clean technology installation leads to increased SDG7 contributions and to total cost
reductions. Fig. 4 presents the target achievement for the energy- and resource-related SDGs without target achievement constraints.
Additionally, it shows the contribution of SDG11 (sustainable cities and communities).
Fig. 5 presents the impact of the sensitivity analysis of SDG6 on the total costs (represented with SDG1) and on the dual variables
of SDG6, comparing a conventional setup without options for water reductions and the additional consideration of such.
A community can only achieve clean water and sanitation (SDG6) improvement by installing greywater systems. However, as
the share of greywater in sewage is limited, SDG6 has its limit at 45%. The high costs for target achievement can be seen in SDG1
decreases and the dual variables. Water reduction of 20% leads to a linear shift of the limit and dual variable and to lower costs at
higher targets.
SDG7 (clean and affordable energy) targets can be achieved by favoring heat pump installation to district heat connection, as
presented in Fig. 6. Contributions up to 90% can be achieved. Moreover, batteries are installed to promote local renewable energy use
and to prevent electricity grid feedin. The dual variables define the costs for additional target achievement. They are low compared
to SDG 6. However, target increase from 85% to 90% leads to a sharp increase in the dual variables.
Fig. 7 presents the sensitivity analysis of SDG12 (responsible consumption and production), where additional recycling leads to
higher costs. The increase can be lowered by promoting waste reduction.

10
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Fig. 4. Community contribution to SDGs (left) and share of single SDG contributions to SDG11 (sustainable cities and communities) (right).

Fig. 5. SDG1 - no poverty (top) and the dual variable of SDG6 (clean water and sanitation) in dependency of SDG6 contribution targets in the community.

Finally, Fig. 8 shows a direct correlation between SDG7 and SDG13 (climate action). However, at SDG13 contribution targets over
60%, only SDG7 slightly increases as resource-related operations such as greywater installation and waste recycling are increasingly
implemented, which do not directly contribute to SDG7.
The simultaneous sensitivity analysis results show that different SDG targets become active at different limits. According to the
Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions, a constraint and an SDG target become active if the respective dual variables are not equal to
zero. SDG6 and SDG12 are the first active constraints at 5%, followed by SDG13 at 50%. Owing the correlation with SDG13, SDG7
is the last functional constraint at 90%. Limits are similar to the single-goal sensitivity analyses, with SDG6 limit at 45%, SDG13 at
70%, and SDG7 at 90%. As no limit for waste recycling was assumed, the constraint is not limited in target setting. Detailed results
of the simultaneous sensitivity analysis are presented in the Appendix.

4.2.3. Politically driven incentive schemes in communities

This section presents the results of the incentive schemes in the form of penalties (Path 2) and investment subsidies (Path 3).
Detailed results on Path 2 and Path 3 analyses are presented in the Appendix. Incentive schemes in Paths 2 and 3 both lead to the
same SDG contributions as predefined targets in Path 1. However, the incentive schemes differ in their impact on the total costs and
in cost-requirement for penalizing or providing incentives. Table 4 presents a comparison between different incentive schemes.
SDG6 improvement leads to the highest incentive costs. Greywater installation requires 20% of incentive costs of sewage disposal
penalties. The relations differ in SDG7, where penalties for district heat procurement lead to lower incentive costs than heat pump

11
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Fig. 6. Community heat technology installation (top) and the dual variable of SDG7 (clean and affordable energy) in dependency of SDG7 contribution targets.

Fig. 7. Community sensitivity analysis for SDG12 (responsible consumption and production) with and without waste reduction.

Table 4
Comparison of policy paths 2 and 3 regarding incentive cost volume, total community costs and cost increases in the
community.

Policy Incentive Incentive costs Total Cost increase

in e community in %
costs in e

No incentives - 0 18723 0
Sewage disposal penalty 10.9 e∕m3 10064 20701 10.57
Greywater incentive 400 e∕l 2020 20464 9.30
District heat procurement penalty 0.038 e∕kW h 194 18979 1.37
Heat pump subsidies 400 e∕kW 506 18875 0.81
Waste disposal penalties 0.15 e∕kg 0 20895 11.60
Waste recycling subsidies 0.15 e∕kg 2228 20895 11.60
CO2 price 1.17 e∕kgCO2 8001 20413 9.02
CO2 price 0.07 e∕kgCO2 697 18771 0.26
Combination penalties - 10650 23184 23.83
Combination subsidies - 5311 23811 27.17
Combination half subsidies, half penalties - 3011 23161 23.70

12
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Fig. 8. Correlation between SDG13 (climate action) and SDG7 (clean and affordable energy) in communities.

investment subsidies. SDG12 incentives are independent of the implementation. Waste disposal penalties automatically prevent
disposal, leading to higher costs for consumers. SDG13 improvement requires comparably high costs. Considering a combination of
incentive schemes leads to higher incentive costs for penalties compared with investment subsidies. However, a combination of both,
penalties and subsidies, leads to the lowest incentive costs.

4.3. Municipality analyses

This section presents the municipality setup in Section 4.3.1, the SDG target setting of the municipality in 4.3.2, and the incentive
schemes for the municipality in Section 4.3.3.

4.3.1. Municipality investigation setup

The analyses are performed in the municipality “Breitenau am Steinfeld” [101], Lower Austria, consisting of 730 households
that are aggregated. Fig. 9 presents the technologies and operations considered in the municipality. Compared to the community,
municipal analyses additionally consider recovered water from sewage treatment and recovered electricity and heat from waste
incineration.
The analyses are similar to community analyses, with a significant difference in technology potential and demand scope. Another
important change compared with the community is that investment decisions in sewage treatment plants and waste incineration
plants are performed instead of resource disposal. Recovered water from sewage treatment and recovered electricity and heat from
waste incineration can be used within the municipality and can contribute to SDG target achievement.

4.3.2. Politically driven goal achievement in municipalities

This section presents the results of the SDG contribution target sensitivity analyses (Path 1) for the municipality. Detailed results
of the simultaneous SDG sensitivity analyses are presented in the Appendix.
Fig. 10 shows that unlike for the municipality, SDG6 contribution is at 48% without constraints due to recovered water from
sewage treatment. SDG7 is at 54%, SDG13 is at 71% and SDG12 is not targeted without constraints. High cost reductions can be
achieved by utilizing recovered electricity and heat from waste incineration. However, the non-biogenic share of waste limits SDG7
target achievement, as in the municipal SDG7 indicator denominator, the total share of recovered energy from waste incineration
(biogenic and non-biogenic) is considered.
Fig. 11 presents the sensitivity analysis for SDG6 (clean water and sanitation) in the municipality.
The limit for SDG6 is at 70% and can be improved to 90% with additional water reduction. The dual variables increase to a
constant value when greywater is needed at targets of 20% and an almost linear cost increase emerges with additional greywater
requirements.
Similar to the community, heat pump installation increases with higher goals for SDG7 (clean and affordable energy) and batteries
are installed for higher local clean energy use. Moreover, PV installation decreases at higher target settings to prevent electricity feed-
in, as owing to waste incineration energy recovery, an already high amount of excess electricity exists in the municipality. Fig. 12
presents the SDG7 sensitivity analysis.
Fig. 13 presents the sensitivity analysis on SDG12 (responsible consumption and production), where similar increasing costs with
increasing waste recycling can be examined.
SDG13 (climate action) and SDG7 correlate linearly, as presented in Fig. 14. Unlike in communities, no saturation emerges.
The KKT constraints can identify active SDG constraints in the municipality. Similar to the community, SDG12 becomes active at
5% and SDG6 becomes active at 50% because of the implemented sewage treatment water recovery. SDG7 becomes active at 60%,

13
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Fig. 9. Case study setup for municipality analyses.

Fig. 10. Municipality contribution to SDGs (left) and share of single SDG contributions to SDG11 (sustainable cities and communities) (right).

14
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Fig. 11. SDG1 - no poverty (top) and the dual variable of SDG6 (clean water and sanitation) in dependency of SDG6 contribution targets in the municipality.

Table 5
Comparison of policy paths 2 and 3 regarding incentive cost volume, total community costs and cost increases in the
municipality.

Policy Incentive Incentive costs Total Cost increase

in ke community in %
costs in ke

No incentives - 0 1047 0
Sewage treatment penalty 6.92 e∕m3 244 1169 11.60
Greywater incentive 400 e∕l 134 1169 11.64
District heat procurement penalty 0.06 e∕kW h 28 1084 3.50
Heat pump subsidies 400 e∕kW 126 1068 1.98
Waste disposal penalties 0.37 e∕kg 0 1592 52.00
Waste recycling subsidies 0.37 e∕kg 554 1592 52.00
CO2 price 3.1 e∕kgCO2 594 1476 40.97
CO2 price 0.1 e∕kgCO2 55 1054 0.65
Combination penalties - 294 1645 57.10
Combination subsidies - 715 1668 59.30
Combination half subsidies, half penalties - 154 1600 52.70

followed by SDG13 at 85%. SDG6 reaches the limit at 70%; SDG13 at 90%; and SDG7 at 95%. SDG12 is not limited because of the
assumption of unlimited recycling programs.

4.3.3. Politically driven incentive schemes in municipalities

This section presents the results of municipal incentive schemes, whereas detailed analyses are presented in the Appendix. Similar
to the community analyses, both incentive schemes lead to the same results as SDG target policies.
Table 5 presents the applied incentive schemes in the municipality.
For single SDG investment schemes, penalties and subsidies have a similar relation as in communities. However, for multiple
SDG incentives, the allocation changes, as subsidies lead to higher incentive costs than penalties. As in the previous analysis of
communities, combining both incentive schemes results in the lowest costs.

5. Discussion

This section discusses the significant outcomes of the case study analyses. Section 5.1 provides a discussion on the applicability
and scope of the proposed indicator system. Section 5.2 compares different SDG policy paths and the proposed incentive schemes.

15
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Fig. 12. Municipality heat technology installation (top) and the dual variable (bottom) of SDG7 (clean and affordable energy) in dependency of SDG7 contribution
targets.

Fig. 13. Municipality sensitivity analysis for SDG12 (responsible consumption and production) with and without waste reduction.

5.1. Application of the proposed UN SDG classification system

The results in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 showed that the application of the SDG indicator system differs between particular SDG to be
achieved. Efficient operation and technology installation can influence energy- and resource-related SDGs. However, policymakers
must incentivize communities and municipalities to invest in sustainable development. SDG1 (no poverty) and SDG13 (climate action)
require comparison setups. In the proposed method, business-as-usual configurations were provided as benchmarks. However, for

16
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Fig. 14. Correlation between SDG13 (climate action) and SDG7 (clean and affordable energy) in municipalities.

long-term applicability, it might be more efficient to give community and municipality benchmarks with broader applicability. This
can include comparison with communities and municipalities of similar scope, particularly providing an efficiency standard for
communities and municipalities as business-as-usual.
The proposed SDG indicators differ slightly between communities and municipalities, leading to more sustainable operations in
both. The application of SDG7 (clean and affordable energy) targets automatically leads to SDG13 improvement in both, as presented
in Figs. 8 and 14. However, the results showed different implementations and achievable goals in both configurations, as communities
and municipalities differ in scope. Communities can improve SDG6 (clean water and sanitation) by greywater system installation.
These are not cost-efficient, and would only be installed with the application of SDG6 targets. SDG7 can be improved in communities
by decarbonizing heat generation. Municipality analyses introduce water recovery as a direct contribution to SDG6, and waste energy
recovery, which SDG7 assessed. The introduction of waste energy recovery leads to a simultaneous improvement and limitation in
SDG7 contribution. Recovered water only improves SDG6 and has no counter-effect. Furthermore, Figs. 5, 7, 11 and 13 show that
both, the community and municipality should apply waste and water reduction. This can increase SDG6 and SDG12 (responsible
consumption and production) improvement while keeping SDG1 at a higher level.
The application of the proposed indicators requires critical implementation assessment. Fig. 12 shows that SDG target setting
could also affect sustainable technology installation, as PV installation is decreased with higher SDG7 targets in the municipality.
Therefore, a critical assessment of the SDG indicator applicability in specific setups might be necessary to avoid counter-effects. This
assessment is the responsibility of municipal governments and policymakers, who establish the SDG indicator system. Municipality
actions can include cooperation with large electricity consumers or flexibilities that can use the excess electricity. Policy actions can
establish an indicator adaptation for the proposed system, where fed-in electricity is not counted or less counted for the indicator.
However, a general indicator adaption is not purposeful, as the impact might be completely different in other configurations with
less excess electricity. Therefore, if an indicator adaption for the municipality is desired, justification must be made by the municipal
government.

5.2. Comparison of policy paths

The method established three different SDG policy paths for the improvement of sustainable development in the community
and municipality. The proposed SDG policy paths introduced in Fig. 2 all lead to desired SDG contribution targets, whereas the
implementation of the paths differs in their applied policy actions. In terms of goal achievement, all three paths lead to the desired
SDG goals, but they differ significantly in costs incurred for target achievement. Proposing strict SDG targets in Path 1 increases costs,
especially for greywater installation. Therefore, the SDG1 indicator is mandatory for policymakers to have an overview of community
or municipality costs. Moreover, the dual variables of the constraints in Path 1, representing the SDG targets, are an efficient means
to determine costs for SDG achievement. They can give an insight until which goals the costs do not increase disproportionally high,
as it can be seen in Fig. 8. These dual variables can therefore help in defining penalties for policy Path 2 as they represent the costs
for higher SDG target achievements. The results showed that when the operation that lowers the SDG contribution can be identified,
dual variables as penalties lead to the desired goal achievement. However, penalties lead to a direct cost increase for consumers
in the community or municipality as these penalties must be directly paid by the consumers. Path 3 can provide an alternative, as
funding agencies can support communities and municipalities in higher goal achievement through technology investment subsidies.
The technologies, that must be subsidized can be identified in Path 2 by analyzing which technologies are increasingly installed to
avoid penalty costs. Path 3 also leads to the desired goals, but it leads to a high subsidy load for funding agencies, which consumers
indirectly pay in the form of taxes. Thus, comparing incentive schemes according to Paths 2 and 3, as presented in Tables 4 and 5 is
mandatory for policymakers to define such schemes and to identify to lowest costs incurred for higher SDG targets.

17
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Paths 2 and 3 differ in their impact on the incentive scheme costs, depending on the desired SDG contribution targets. SDG6
contribution in the form of greywater installation is not performed without policy incentives. Sewage treatment penalties lead
to higher costs than greywater investment subsidies. Therefore, investment subsidies should be prioritized for SDG6. Regarding
SDG7, penalties on district heat procurement are more cost-efficient than heat pump investment subsidies. District heat penalties
are equivalent to increasing market prices. Thus, incentive schemes to promote heat pumps might not be necessary for the long-
term if district heat prices increase because of changes in the market. SDG12 can be improved by either recycling promotion or
disposal penalizing. However, recycling promotion might need more information on recycling programs, whereas disposal penalizing
might encourage consumers to look for alternative options to disposal, which can include participation in recycling programs.
Higher CO2 prices lead to higher SDG13 contribution. However, SDG13 is also automatically improved with incentive schemes
for SDG7. The results showed that SDG7 incentive schemes are more cost-efficient than SDG13 penalties while leading to similar
SDG13 contributions. Thus, the promotion of clean energy technologies should be favored to emission penalizing. Multiple target
achievement incentive schemes vary between communities and municipalities, as presented in Table 4 and Table 5. Thus, a scope-
dependency of the incentive schemes could be identified. If only one kind of incentive scheme is established, investment subsidies
should be favored in communities, whereas penalties should be favored in municipalities. However, the results for both, community
and municipality, showed that a combination of penalties and investment subsidies leads to the lowest incentive costs while reaching
similar SDG contribution targets. Funding agencies can use penalties to finance at least a share of the provided investment subsidies.
Penalties or investment subsidies for single SDG targets should be chosen based on the higher cost-efficiency of the respective
incentive scheme. Therefore, the incentive scheme’s definition must depend on the particular SDG.

6. Conclusions

This work introduces an SDG indicator system that indicates communities’ or municipalities’ contributions to the energy- and
resource-related SDGs. The method applied the proposed indicators in communities and municipalities by simulating both with lin-
ear optimization models. Application leads to differences in technology impact, SDG target costs and SDG target limits. Furthermore,
technology portfolios and investments have a high impact on SDG target achievement. The heat sector greatly affects the indicators,
especially SDG7 and SDG13 (climate action). Increasing heat pump installation in favor of district heat connection has positive contri-
butions to SDG7 and SDG13 while leading to only slightly increasing costs. However, sustainable water management, represented by
SDG6 (clean water and sanitation), leads to high costs for the community or municipality. The main option for higher goal achieve-
ment is a greywater system installation, which leads to high investment costs. Thus, SDG1 (no poverty) must be considered in the
indicator system to monitor the financial load of SDG contribution improvement for consumers. Therefore, policymakers establishing
indicator systems for sustainable technology utilization must consider all desired SDGs and the required costs for achievement.
The model considers three different policy paths, namely, SDG target setting (Path 1), penalty charging (Path 2), and investment
subsidies (Path 3). Dual variables of Path 1 constraints are considered penalties for counterproductive actions in Path 2. Therefore,
dual variables are applicable to policy action settings. Moreover, the approach identifies technologies that must be promoted for
sustainable development and must be subsidized in Path 3. However, the costs for consumers to achieve targets differ between
paths. For specific SDGs, penalty setting leads to lower costs, while for other SDGs, investment subsidy provision is more cost-
efficient. However, combining both incentive schemes leads to the lowest incentive costs. The decision on penalty or subsidy must
be performed concerning the single SDGs.
This work considers SDGs and policy impact on communities and municipalities within their system boundaries. However, the
overall impact of the implementation on the economy and society beyond the system boundaries is not considered. Positive or
negative effects on communities’ and municipalities’ SDG target achievements can also depend on external influences. As SDGs are
an international issue, the impact of multiple communities and municipalities implementing such measuring systems on national
or global SDG contribution should be further assessed. Furthermore, it should be assessed how technologies that are out of the
scope of the communities and municipalities can contribute to SDG goal contribution. Moreover, additional technologies from other
sectors, such as hydrogen technologies, can be implemented within or beyond the system boundaries. Therefore, future work should
consider the interaction between multiple communities and municipalities, implementing classification systems also considering
effects beyond their system boundaries.

Nomenclature

Table 6
Model parameters and decision variables.

Sets
 Energy- and resource-related SDG index: k
 Available technologies index: l
Parameters
𝑊 𝐴𝐶𝐶 Weighted average cost of capital %
𝑁𝑙 Amortization period for technologies -
𝐶𝑙invest Capacity-based costs e∕[𝑙]
𝐷𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑐𝑜𝑚 Water demand community m3
𝐷𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑚𝑢𝑛 Water demand municipality m3
𝐹𝑒𝑙𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑
ren
Share renewables electricity grid -

18
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Table 6 (continued)

𝐹𝑑ℎ𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑
ren
Share renewables district heat grid -
biogene
𝐹𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 Share biogenic waste -
𝑀𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒
total
Total accruing waste kg
cleanwaterSDG6
𝑇 𝐺𝑐𝑜𝑚 SDG6 target community -
cleanwaterSDG6
𝑇 𝐺𝑚𝑢𝑛 SDG6 target municipality -
cleanenergySDG7
𝑇 𝐺𝑐𝑜𝑚 SDG7 target community -
cleanenergySDG7
𝑇 𝐺𝑚𝑢𝑛 SDG7 target municipality -
𝑇 𝐺consprodSDG12 SDG12 target -
𝑇 𝐺climateactionSDG13 SDG13 target -
Variables
𝑧 Objective e
𝑐 tot Total costs e
𝑐 tot,BaU Total costs business-as-usual scenario e
𝑐 invest Investment costs e
𝑐 operational Operational costs e
𝑐 procurement Procurement costs e
𝛼 Annuity factor -
𝑥𝑙 Capacity investment [𝑙]
𝑣reduced
𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑐𝑜𝑚
Reduced water community m3
greywater
𝑣𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑐𝑜𝑚 Reused greywater community m3
𝑣reduced
𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑚𝑢𝑛
Reduced water municipality m3
greywater
𝑣𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑚𝑢𝑛 Reused greywater municipality m3
𝑣recovered
𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑚𝑢𝑛
Recovered water municipality m3
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
PV
PV generation community kW h
elgrid
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚 Electricity grid procurement community kW h
𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑚
HP
Heat pump heat generation community kW h
dhgrid
𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑚 District heat grid procurement community kW h
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
feedin
Electricity grid feed-in community kW h
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
PV
PV generation municipality kW h
elgrid
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛 Electricity grid procurement municipality kW h
𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑚𝑢𝑛
HP
Heat pump heat generation municipality kW h
dhgrid
𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑚𝑢𝑛 District heat grid procurement municipality kW h
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
feedin
Electricity grid feed-in municipality kW h
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
wastecomb
Waste treatment recovered electricity municipality kW h
𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑚𝑢𝑛
wastecomb
Waste treatment recovered heat municipality kW h
𝑞ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑚𝑢𝑛
exhaust
Exhaust heat municipality kW h
recycled
𝑚𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 Recycled waste kg
𝑚reduced
𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒
Reduced waste kg
𝑒𝑚tot Total CO2 emissions kgCO2
𝑒𝑚tot,BaU CO2 emissions business-as-usual kgCO2
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
ren
Renewable electricity community kW h
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑐𝑜𝑚
tot
Total electricity community kW h
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
ren
Renewable electricity municipality kW h
𝑞𝑒𝑙,𝑚𝑢𝑛
tot
Total electricity municipality kW h
𝑖nopovertySDG1 SDG1 indicator -
cleanwaterSDG6
𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑚 SDG6 indicator community -
cleanwaterSDG6
𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑛 SDG6 indicator municipality -
cleanenergySDG7
𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑚 SDG7 indicator community -
cleanenergySDG7
𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑛 SDG7 indicator municipality -
𝑖consprodSDG12 SDG12 indicator -
𝑖climateactionSDG13 SDG13 indicator -
𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑑
SDG,k
Nonweighted SDG indicator -
𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑤
SDG,k
Weighted SDG indicator -
cleanwaterSDG6
𝜆𝑐𝑜𝑚 SDG6 dual variable community e/[𝑔𝑜𝑎𝑙]
cleanwaterSDG6
𝜆𝑚𝑢𝑛 SDG6 dual variable municipality e/[𝑔𝑜𝑎𝑙]
cleanenergySDG7
𝜆𝑐𝑜𝑚 SDG7 dual variable community e/[𝑔𝑜𝑎𝑙]
cleanenergySDG7
𝜆𝑚𝑢𝑛 SDG7 dual variable municipality e/[𝑔𝑜𝑎𝑙]
𝜆consprodSDG12 SDG12 dual variable e/[𝑔𝑜𝑎𝑙]
𝜆climateactionSDG13 SDG13 dual variable e/[𝑔𝑜𝑎𝑙]

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Matthias Maldet: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Con-
tributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Georg Lettner: Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data.
Christoph Loschan; Daniel Schwabeneder; Hans Auer: Conceived and designed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the
data

19
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Table A.7
Tariff assumptions.

Tariff Value

Electricity purchase 29.7 cent∕kW h

Electricity feedin 7 cent∕kW h
District heat purchase 7.6 cent∕kW h
Water pipeline purchase 1.5 e∕m3
Recovered water purchase 1.35 e∕m3
Waste disposal costs 0.23 e∕kg
Waste recycling costs [103] 0.38 e∕kg
Sewage disposal costs 2.28 e∕m3
CO2 price 30 e∕t

Table A.8
Investment cost assumptions with a WACC of 3%.

Technology Costs Amortization period Source

in years [104]

PV 1300 e∕kWp 20 [105]

Battery 1000 e∕kW h 10 [106]
Heat pump 945 e∕kW h 8 [107], [108]
District heat connection 500 e∕kW 20 [109]
Waste combustion 5200 e∕kg 10 [110]
Sewage treatment plant 70 000 e∕m3 20 [111], [112]
Greywater system 520 e∕l - 15 [113]

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

Data included in article/supp. material/referenced in article.

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted under the “Hybrid Local Sustainable Communities” project [102], supported with funds from the
Climate and Energy Fund under Grant Agreement No. 891897 and implemented in the framework of the RTI-initiative “Flagship
region Energy” within the Green Energy Lab. The authors acknowledge TU Wien Bibliothek for financial support through its Open-
Access Funding Program.

Appendix A. Data assumptions

This section provides an overview of the assumptions in the case studies presented in Sections 4.2 and 4.3.
The community and municipality’s business-as-usual (BaU) values are determined by separate optimization analyses without
sustainable operations and technology investment. BaU results for the community are 23766 e as total costs and 19.8 t CO2 for the
emissions. For the municipality, BaU results indicate 2438 ke and 1611 t CO2 .
Table A.7 presents the tariff assumptions for both, the community and municipality.
Table A.8 presents the technology investment cost assumptions. Operational costs are assumed as in [99].
Table A.9 presents the assumed maximum technologies in the community and municipality. Technologies were considered based
on the case study sites’ provided community and municipality data.
Table A.10 gives an overview on the energy and resource demands. Demands were assumed based on household sizes, whereas
for the municipality, demands of public buildings were provided by the investigated municipality. Moreover, the total accruing waste
amount was provided for the whole municipality.
Finally, Table A.11 presents the emission assumptions. Waste emissions are adapted, as only the nonbiogenic share of waste leads
to emissions. However, sludge as a by-product from sewage treatment is also incinerated and counted as biogenic, leading to a higher
total biogenic percentage and thus, to lower waste incineration emissions. Disposal and treatment of waste and sewage are assumed
with the same emissions, as disposal leads to treatment beyond the system boundaries.
Moreover, the share of renewable energy generation in the electricity grid of 80% [124] and in the district heating grid of 33%
[121] must be considered.

20
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Table A.9
Technology capacity assumptions in the community and munici-
pality.

Technology Community Municipality

PV 30 kWp 7214 kWp

Battery 30 kW h 7214 kW h
Heat pump 30 kWtherm 5000 kWtherm
District heat connection 30 kW 5000 kW
Waste combustion - 800 t∕h
Sewage treatment plant - 20 m3 ∕h
Greywater system 150 l 9125 l

Table A.10
Annual energy and resource demands in community and municipal-
ity.

Sector Community Municipality Sources

Electricity 40.8 MWh 1696 MWh [114], [115]

Heat 48 MWh 9937 MWh [116], [117]
Water 1405 m3 74 197 m3 [118]
Waste 15 t 848 t [119]

Table A.11
Emission assumptions for technologies and actions.

Technology Emissions Source

Electricity grid 0.209 kgCO2 /kW h [120]

District heat 0.188 kgCO2 /kW h [121]
Sewage disposal 0.300 kgCO2 /m3 [122]
Waste disposal 0.125 kgCO2 /kg [123]
Sewage treatment 0.300 kgCO2 /m3 [122]
Waste combustion 0.125 kgCO2 /kg [123]

Table B.1
Community technology installation impact of SDG Path 1.

Sens. in % PV in kWp Battery in Heat pump District heat Grey water

kW h in kW in kW systems in l

0 30.00 3.65 3.93 13.86 0

5 30.00 3.65 3.93 13.86 8
45 30.00 3.65 3.93 13.86 150
50 30.00 3.65 4.69 13.10 150
70 30.00 3.95 14.47 3.32 150
90 29.86 3.98 14.21 3.58 150
100 30.00 4.00 14.97 2.80 150

Appendix B. Case study results

This section summarizes the detailed results of the community and municipality analyses for all paths according to Fig. 2.

B.1. Community case study results

This section focuses on the results of the policy paths in the community.
The following tables present the sensitivity analysis for specific SDG target setting in the community, according to Path 1.
Table B.1 illustrates the impact on technology installation and Table B.2 shows the effects on SDG contribution targets. Only the
relevant sensitivities where SDG targets become active or reach their limit are presented.
Heat pumps and greywater systems are increasingly installed to reach the proposed SDG targets. District heating connection is
decreased, whereas other technologies are only slightly affected. Emission reductions are limited because of the high dependency on
the electricity grid, a significant source of emissions in the community. SDG1 becomes negative at targets of 45%. Thus, the costs are
higher than that in the BaU case, leading to non-cost-efficient operation. However, the reduction of water and waste (as additional
sensitivity) can extend the SDG limits and keeps SDG1 at a higher level while reaching the same targets.
Table B.3 presents the impact of penalty incentive schemes on technology installation in the community and Table B.4 presents
their implications on SDG contribution targets. CO2 price extension considers prices of 0.15 e∕kgCO2 . The exact values of the invest-
ment schemes are presented in Table 4.

21
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Table B.2
Community SDG contribution target impact SDG Path 1.

Sens. in % SDG1 SDG6 SDG7 SDG12 SDG13

0 21 0 73 0 42
5 20 5 73 5 42
45 -4 45 73 45 47
50 -5 45 75 50 50
70 -10 45 90 88 70
90 -11 45 90 90 70
100 -11 45 90 100 70

Table B.3
Community technology installation impact SDG Path 2.

Policy action PV in kWp Battery in Heat pump District heat Grey water
kW h in kW in kW systems in l

Sewage disposal penalties 30 3.65 3.93 13.86 67

District heat penalties 30 3.65 10.50 7.31 0
Waste disposal penalties 30 3.65 3.93 13.86 0
CO2 price extension 30 3.95 14.47 3.32 0
Penalty combination 30 3.68 11.22 6.57 67

Table B.4
Community SDG contribution target impact of SDG Path 2.

Policy action SDG1 in % SDG6 in % SDG7 in % SDG12 in % SDG13 in %

Sewage disposal penalties -29 29 73 0 43

District heat penalties 19 0 87 0 57
Waste disposal penalties 12 0 73 100 51
CO2 price extension -20 0 90 50 65
Penalty combination -42 29 88 100 68

Table B.5
Community technology installation impact of SDG Path 3.

Policy action PV in kW p Battery in kW h Heat pump in kW District heat in kW Grey water systems in l

Greywater investment subsidies 30 3.65 3.93 13.86 60

Heat pump investment subsidies 30 3.65 8.88 8.90 0
Waste recycling subsidies 30 3.65 3.93 13.86 0
CO2 price extension 30 3.68 6.57 11.20 0
Subsidy combination 30 3.68 110.81 6.97 60

Table B.6
Community SDG contribution target impact of SDG Path 3.

Policy action SDG1 in % SDG6 in % SDG7 in % SDG12 in % SDG13 in %

Greywater investment subsidies 22 28 73 0 42

Heat pump investment subsidies 23 0 85 0 55
Waste disposal penalties 22 0 73 100 51
CO2 price extension 18 0 80 0 50
Subsidy combination 22 28 87 100 68

Increased sewage disposal costs lead to greywater installation becoming an economically feasible option and thus to increased
SDG6 contribution. Moreover, additional district heating costs lead to heat pumps becoming the dominant heat generation technol-
ogy. Additional heat pump installation leads to improvement in SDG7 contribution. Increasing waste disposal costs lead to full waste
recycling (as no limit was assumed), which leads to a maximum SDG12 target. High CO2 prices increase SDG13. Such prices affect
not only SDG13 but also SDG7 and SDG12. However, all of the penalties lead to increased total costs and thus, to a decrease in SDG1.
Incentive schemes that consider greywater further lead to negative SDG1 contributions and thus to higher costs than those in the BaU
scenario. Therefore, a detailed analysis on the incentive costs (as performed in Table 4) is mandatory for penalty impact assessment.
Tables B.5 and B.6 present the investment subsidy incentive schemes and their impact on technology installation and SDG target
achievement. CO2 price extension considers prices of 0.15 e∕kgCO2 .
Investment subsidies lead to similar results as penalties. Therefore, investment subsidies can be an alternative approach to promote
SDG contribution. SDG1 does not decrease, as the investment incentives are not directly provided by consumers. However, as it must

22
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Fig. B.1. Combined incentive scheme for communities.

Table B.7
Municipality technology installation impact SDG Path 1.

Sens. in % PV in kWp Bat in kW h HP in kW DH in kW GW in l Inc. in kW Sew. treat in l

0 7214 634 1545 2137 0 579 8025

5 7214 638 1550 2132 0 550 8025
50 7214 754 1588 2094 420 283 7600
60 7195 817 1877 1805 2110 241 5900
70 5098 790 1934 1748 3800 239 4220
85 3172 779 2538 1144 3800 156 4220
90 3993 2663 3311 371 4012 118 4012
95 4005 6459 3444 238 4012 66 4012
100 4044 6639 3457 225 4012 0 4012

be assumed that the funding agency provides the investment subsidies from tax revenues, investment incentives are also indirectly
paid by consumers. Therefore, the comparison must be performed in terms of costs for incentive schemes.
A combination of penalties and investment subsidies also leads to similar results as those in Paths 2 and 3 in particular while
keeping SDG1 at a higher level than that with penalties alone. Fig. B.1 presents the results of a combined incentive scheme approach
in the community.
In summary, all three policy paths in the community lead to similar results. However, Path 1 requires strict policy setting, whereas
Paths 2 and 3 require incentive scheme costs. Moreover, combining penalties and investment subsidies leads to the most efficient
incentive scheme in the community.

B.2. Municipality case study results

This section focuses on the results of the policy paths in the municipality.
Tables B.7 and B.8 present the impact of the SDG target sensitivity analyses on technology installation and SDG contribution ac-
cording to policy Path 1. Table B.7 includes PV, battery (Bat), heat pump (HP), district heat (DH), greywater (GW), waste incineration
(Inc.) and sewage treatment (Sew. treat) capacities.
As for the community, heat pump installation increases in favor of district heat installation. Moreover, PV installation decreases
to prevent electricity excess feed-in electricity. Owing to the implemented waste incineration energy recovery, the amount of excess
electricity in the system is already high without PV installation. Thus, additional PV installation leads to increased SDG7 contribution
in the system. SDG6 can be achieved without greywater installation due to the implemented sewage treatment water recovery, which
is the significant difference to the community analyses. With the implemented water reduction, the limit of SDG7 can be extended
to 90%.
The Tables B.9 and B.10 show the penalty (pen) incentive scheme impact of Path 2. Exact investment scheme values are presented
in Table 5. Extended CO2 prices are assumed at 3.1 e∕kgCO2 .
As in the community, sewage treatment penalties increase greywater system installation. Moreover, more expensive district heat
procurement costs promote heat pump establishment and waste combustion penalties encourage recycling. However, high CO2 prices
and greywater installation lead to higher costs than in the BaU scenario. Therefore, similar to the community, detailed investment
scheme costs are mandatory to analyze.

23
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Table B.8
Municipality SDG contribution target impact SDG Path 1.

Sens. in % SDG1 in % SDG6 in % SDG7 in % SDG12 in % SDG13 in %

0 35 48 54 0 71
5 33 48 54 5 71
50 18 50 56 50 74
60 13 60 60 60 80
70 6 70 70 70 81
85 -4 70 85 85 85
90 -29 70 90 90 90
95 -65 70 95 95 90
100 -68 70 95 100 90

Table B.9
Municipality technology installation impact of SDG Path 2.

Policy action PV in kWp Bat. in kW h HP in kW DH in kW GW in l Inc. in kW Sew. treat in l

Sew. treat pen 7214 677 1570 2112 4010 454 4012
DH pen. 7214 749 2455 1228 0 579 8025
Inc. pen. 7214 807 1537 2145 0 0 8025
CO2 price ext. 7214 1189 2952 730 4012 1489 4012
Pen. combi. 7214 880 2635 7047 4012 0 4012

Table B.10
Municipal SDG contribution target impact of SDG Path 2.

Policy action SDG1 in % SDG6 in % SDG7 in % SDG12 in % SDG13

Sew. treat pen. 12 71 55 0 73

DH pen. 31 48 61 0 83
Inc. pen. 1 48 57 100 74
CO2 price ext. -29 71 66 21 92
Pen. combi. -20 71 66 100 89

Table B.11
Municipality technology installation impact of SDG Path 3.

Policy action PV in kWp Bat. in kW h HP in kW DH in kW GW in l Inc. in kW Sewage treat in l

GW inv. sub. 7214 677 1570 2112 4012 454 4012

HP inv. sub. 7214 727 2211 1471 0 579 8025
Rec. sub. 7214 807 1537 2145 0 0 8025
CO2 price ext. 7214 744 1911 1771 0 579 8025
Sub. combi. 7214 880 2583 1099 4012 0 4012

Table B.12
Municipal SDG contribution target impact of SDG Path 3.

Policy action SDG1 SDG6 SDG7 SDG12 SDG13

GW inv. sub. 71 55 0 73 36
HP inv. sub 48 60 0 81 42
Rec. sub. 48 57 100 74 36
CO2 price ext. 48 58 0 77 31
Sub. combi. 71 65 100 89 41

Finally, Table B.11 shows the impact of municipal investment subsidy (inv. sub.) incentive schemes on technology installation.
Table B.12 presents the impact on SDG target contributions. Both tables show the results according to municipal policy Path 3.
Extended CO2 prices are assumed at 0.1 e∕kgCO2 .
The proposed investment subsidies lead to similar results as those of penalties, with the difference that the subsidies are indirectly
covered by municipal consumers by tax payments. Therefore, SDG1 is not the only indicator to be considered. Incentive scheme costs
are mandatory to be considered as well.
Similar to the community, a combination of penalty and investment subsidy incentive schemes, particularly a combination of
Paths 2 and 3, leads to the lowest costs and is therefore the most efficient incentive scheme. Fig. B.2 presents the SDG contributions
of a combined incentive scheme.

24
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

Fig. B.2. Combined incentive scheme for municipality.

References

[1] European Commission, Sustainable development, [Online]. Available https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/development-and-sustainability/sustainable-

development_en. (Accessed 30 March 2023).
[2] United Nations, Do you know all 17 SDGs?, Online https://sdgs.un.org/goals. (Accessed 22 September 2022).
[3] United Nations, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, [Online]. Available https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda. (Accessed 13
February 2023).
[4] S. Zahra, R.A. Badeeb, The impact of fiscal decentralization, green energy, and economic policy uncertainty on sustainable environment: a new perspective
from ecological footprint in five OECD countries, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (2022) 698–54 717, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19669-y.
[5] M. Ahmad, E. Satrovic, Relating fiscal decentralization and financial inclusion to environmental sustainability: Criticality of natural resources, J. Environ.
Manag. 325 (2023) 116633, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030147972202206X.
[6] C.R. Karger, W. Hennings, Sustainability evaluation of decentralized electricity generation, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 583–593, [Online]. Available
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032107001517.
[7] P. Fenton, S. Gustafsson, Moving from high-level words to local action — governance for urban sustainability in municipalities, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
26–27 (2017) 129–133.
[8] G. Atisa, A. Zemrani, M. Weiss, Decentralized governments: local empowerment and sustainable development challenges in Africa, Environ. Dev. Sustain. 23
(2021) 3349–3367, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00722-0.
[9] M. Lombardi, E. Laiola, C. Tricase, R. Rana, Toward urban environmental sustainability: The carbon footprint of Foggia’s municipality, J. Clean. Prod. 186
(2018) 534–543, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618308254.
[10] H. Ranängen, M. Cöster, R. Isaksson, R. Garvare, From Global Goals and Planetary Boundaries to Public Governance—A Framework for Prioritizing Organiza-
tional Sustainability Activities, Sustainability 10 (2018), [Online]. Available https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2741.
[11] E. Kuznetsova, M.-A. Cardin, M. Diao, S. Zhang, Integrated decision-support methodology for combined centralized-decentralized waste-to-energy man-
agement systems design, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 103 (2019) 477–500, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1364032118308165.
[12] C. Wang, Z. Zou, S. Geng, Green Technology Investment in a Decentralized Supply Chain under Demand Uncertainty, Sustainability 13 (2021), [Online].
Available https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3752.
[13] N.G. Leigh, H. Lee, Sustainable and Resilient Urban Water Systems: The Role of Decentralization and Planning, Sustainability 11 (2019), [Online]. Available
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/918.
[14] A.G. Capodaglio, A. Callegari, D. Cecconet, D. Molognoni, Sustainability of decentralized wastewater treatment technologies, Water Pract. Technol. 12 (2017)
463–477, https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2017.055.
[15] D.R. Thiam, An energy pricing scheme for the diffusion of decentralized renewable technology investment in developing countries, Energy Policy 39
(2011) 4284–4297, special Section: Renewable energy policy and development. [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301421511003296.
[16] M. Engelken, B. Römer, M. Drescher, I. Welpe, Transforming the energy system: Why municipalities strive for energy self-sufficiency, Energy Policy 98 (2016)
365–377, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516304104.
[17] C.-S. Karavas, G. Kyriakarakos, K.G. Arvanitis, G. Papadakis, A multi-agent decentralized energy management system based on distributed intelligence for the
design and control of autonomous polygeneration microgrids, Energy Convers. Manag. 103 (2015) 166–179, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0196890415005610.
[18] M. Elkazaz, M. Sumner, D. Thomas, A hierarchical and decentralized energy management system for peer-to-peer energy trading, Appl. Energy 291 (2021)
116766, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261921002737.
[19] C.E. Hoicka, J. Lowitzsch, M.C. Brisbois, A. Kumar, L.R. Camargo, Implementing a just renewable energy transition: Policy advice for transposing the new
European rules for renewable energy communities, Energy Policy 156 (2021) 112435, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301421521003050.
[20] C. Romero-Rubio, J.R. de Andrés Díaz, Sustainable energy communities: a study contrasting Spain and Germany, Energy Policy 85 (2015) 397–409, [Online].
Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151500230X.
[21] A. Mesjasz-Lech, Municipal Urban Waste Management—Challenges for Polish Cities in an Era of Circular Resource Management, Resources 10 (2021), [Online].
Available https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/10/6/55.

25
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

[22] H. Jouhara, D. Czajczyńska, H. Ghazal, R. Krzyżyńska, L. Anguilano, A.J. Reynolds, N. Spencer, Municipal waste management systems for domestic use, Energy
139 (2017) 485–506, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217313464.
[23] A. Periathamby, Municipal waste management, in: Waste, 2011, pp. 109–125, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
B9780123814753100087.
[24] K. Wang, E.G. Davies, Municipal water planning and management with an end-use based simulation model, Environ. Model. Softw. 101 (2018) 204–217,
[Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136481521730556X.
[25] Y. Zhuang, Q. Zhang, Evaluating Municipal Water Management Options with the Incorporation of Water Quality and Energy Consumption, Water Resour.
Manag. 29 (2015) 35–61, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0825-6.
[26] M. Bortoluzzi, C.C. de Souza, M. Furlan, Bibliometric analysis of renewable energy types using key performance indicators and multicriteria decision models,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 143 (2021) 110958, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032121002501.
[27] C. Drago, A. Gatto, Policy, regulation effectiveness, and sustainability in the energy sector: A worldwide interval-based composite indicator, Energy Policy 167
(2022) 112889, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421522001148.
[28] I. Gunnarsdottir, B. Davidsdottir, E. Worrell, S. Sigurgeirsdottir, Indicators for sustainable energy development: An Icelandic case study, Energy Policy 164
(2022) 112926, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421522001513.
[29] R.F.M. Ameen, M. Mourshed, Urban sustainability assessment framework development: The ranking and weighting of sustainability indicators using analytic
hierarchy process, Sustain. Cities Soc. 44 (2019) 356–366, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S221067071830266X.
[30] P. Verma, A.S. Raghubanshi, Urban sustainability indicators: Challenges and opportunities, Ecol. Indic. 93 (2018) 282–291, [Online]. Available https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1470160X18303418.
[31] A. Evans, V. Strezov, T.J. Evans, Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 1082–1088,
[Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032108000555.
[32] S.L. Ngan, B.S. How, S.Y. Teng, M.A.B. Promentilla, P. Yatim, A.C. Er, H.L. Lam, Prioritization of sustainability indicators for promoting the circular economy:
The case of developing countries, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 111 (2019) 314–331, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/
pii/S1364032119303077.
[33] C. Ghenai, M. Albawab, M. Bettayeb, Sustainability indicators for renewable energy systems using multi-criteria decision-making model and ex-
tended SWARA/ARAS hybrid method, Renew. Energy 146 (2020) 580–597, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S0960148119309978.
[34] C. Sheinbaum-Pardo, B.J. Ruiz-Mendoza, V. Rodríguez-Padilla, Mexican energy policy and sustainability indicators, Energy Policy 46 (2012) 278–283, [Online].
Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421512002650.
[35] H. Afshari, S. Agnihotri, C. Searcy, M.Y. Jaber, Social sustainability indicators: A comprehensive review with application in the energy sector, Sustain. Prod.
Consump. 31 (2022) 263–286, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352550922000501.
[36] A. Kylili, P.A. Fokaides, P.A.L. Jimenez, Key performance indicators (kpis) approach in buildings renovation for the sustainability of the built environment: A
review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56 (2016) 906–915, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032115013635.
[37] A.A. Razmjoo, A. Sumper, A. Davarpanah, Development of sustainable energy indexes by the utilization of new indicators: A comparative study, Energy Rep.
5 (2019) 375–383, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484719300368.
[38] D.S. Kourkoumpas, G. Benekos, N. Nikolopoulos, S. Karellas, P. Grammelis, E. Kakaras, A review of key environmental and energy performance indicators for the
case of renewable energy systems when integrated with storage solutions, Appl. Energy 231 (2018) 380–398, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918313527.
[39] P. Bertoldi, R. Mosconi, Do energy efficiency policies save energy? A new approach based on energy policy indicators (in the EU Member States), Energy Policy
139 (2020) 111320, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142152030077X.
[40] S. Safarzadeh, M. Rasti-Barzoki, S.R. Hejazi, A review of optimal energy policy instruments on industrial energy efficiency programs, rebound effects, and
government policies, Energy Policy 139 (2020) 111342, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421520300999.
[41] G. Bertanza, E. Ziliani, L. Menoni, Techno-economic performance indicators of municipal solid waste collection strategies, Waste Manag. 74 (2018) 86–97,
[Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956053X18300096.
[42] A.P. Rodrigues, M.L. Fernandes, M.F. Rodrigues, S.C. Bortoluzzi, S.E.G. da Costa, E.P. de Lima, Developing criteria for performance assessment in municipal solid
waste management, J. Clean. Prod. 186 (2018) 748–757, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652618307248.
[43] M.O. Bezerra, D. Vollmer, N. Acero, M.C. Marques, D. Restrepo, E. Mendoza, B. Coutinho, I. Encomenderos, L. Zuluaga, O. Rodríguez, K. Shaad, S. Hauck,
R. González, F. Hernandéz, R. Montelongo, E. Torres, L. Serrano, Operationalizing Integrated Water Resource Management in Latin America: Insights from
Application of the Freshwater Health Index, Environ. Manag. 69 (2022) 815–834, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01446-1.
[44] D. Li, Q. Zuo, Z. Zhang, A new assessment method of sustainable water resources utilization considering fairness-efficiency-security: A case study of 31 provinces
and cities in China, Sustain. Cities Soc. 81 (2022) 103839, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2210670722001664.
[45] A.R. Neves, V. Leal, Energy sustainability indicators for local energy planning: Review of current practices and derivation of a new framework, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 2723–2735, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032110002479.
[46] C. Klemm, F. Wiese, Indicators for the optimization of sustainable urban energy systems based on energy system modeling, Energy Sustain. Soc. 12 (2022) 3,
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00323-3.
[47] M. Braulio-Gonzalo, M.D. Bovea, M.J. Ruá, Sustainability on the urban scale: Proposal of a structure of indicators for the Spanish context, Environ. Impact.
Asses. Rev. 53 (2015) 16–30, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195925515000311.
[48] J. Oliver-Solà, M. Armero, B.M. de Foix, J. Rieradevall, Energy and environmental evaluation of municipal facilities: Case study in the province of Barcelona,
Energy Policy 61 (2013) 920–930, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513005387.
[49] I.B. Alonso, M.V. Sánchez-Rivero, B.M. Pozas, Mapping sustainability and circular economy in cities: Methodological framework from Europe to the Spanish
case, J. Clean. Prod. 357 (2022) 131870, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652622014809.
[50] P. Caldas, B. Dollery, R.C. Marques, Measuring what matters in local government: a Municipality Sustainability Index, Policy Stud. 43 (2022) 738–758, https://
doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2020.1726311, [Online]. Available.
[51] M.R. Teixeira, P. Mendes, E. Murta, L.M. Nunes, Performance indicators matrix as a methodology for energy management in municipal water services, J. Clean.
Prod. 125 (2016) 108–120, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652616300762.
[52] W. Chung, Review of building energy-use performance benchmarking methodologies, Appl. Energy 88 (2011) 1470–1479, [Online]. Available https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030626191000485X.
[53] J. Roth, R. Rajagopal, Benchmarking building energy efficiency using quantile regression, Energy 152 (2018) 866–876, [Online]. Available https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218303360.
[54] R. Dubey, A. Gunasekaran, S.J. Childe, T. Papadopoulos, B. Hazen, M. Giannakis, D. Roubaud, Examining the effect of external pressures and organizational
culture on shaping performance measurement systems (pms) for sustainability benchmarking: Some empirical findings, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 193 (2017) 63–76,
[Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925527317302025.
[55] Şiir Kılkış, Benchmarking the sustainability of urban energy, water and environment systems and envisioning a cross-sectoral scenario for the future, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 103 (2019) 529–545, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136403211830738X.
[56] D. Trigaux, K. Allacker, W. Debacker, Environmental benchmarks for buildings: a critical literature review, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 26 (2021) 1–21, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01840-7.

26
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

[57] N. Lazar, K. Chithra, Benchmarking critical criteria for assessing sustainability of residential buildings in tropical climate, J. Build. Eng. 45 (2022) 103467,
[Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352710221013255.
[58] W. Xuchao, R. Priyadarsini, L.S. Eang, Benchmarking energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in Singapore’s hotel industry, Energy Policy 38 (2010)
4520–4527, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151000279X.
[59] Y. Ding, X. Liu, A comparative analysis of data-driven methods in building energy benchmarking, Energy Build. 209 (2020) 109711, [Online]. Available https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037877881932047X.
[60] S. Welling, S.-O. Ryding, Distribution of environmental performance in life cycle assessments—implications for environmental benchmarking, Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 26 (2021) 275–289, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01852-3.
[61] A. Hollberg, T. Lützkendorf, G. Habert, Top-down or bottom-up? – How environmental benchmarks can support the design process, Build. Environ. 153 (2019)
148–157, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360132319301295.
[62] European Commission, Eu taxonomy for sustainable activities, [Online]. Available https://finance.ec.europa.eu/sustainable-finance/tools-and-standards/eu-
taxonomy-sustainable-activities_en. (Accessed 31 July 2022).
[63] Bundesministerium für Finanzen, Inhalt eines Energieausweises, [Online]. Available https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/bauen_wohnen_und_umwelt/
wohnen/1/Seite.210460.html. (Accessed 21 February 2023).
[64] European Commission, Certificates and inspections, [Online]. Available https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-buildings/
certificates-and-inspections_en. (Accessed 21 February 2023).
[65] European Commission, About the energy label and ecodesign, [Online]. Available https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environment/
standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-ecodesign/about_en. (Accessed 21 February 2023).
[66] e5 Österreich, Das e5-Programm für energieeffiziente Gemeinden, [Online]. Available https://www.e5-gemeinden.at/e5-programm/das-e5-programm, 2023.
(Accessed 21 February 2023).
[67] Österreich e5, Zertifizierung und Auszeichnung, [Online]. Available https://www.e5-gemeinden.at/e5-programm/zertifizierung-und-auszeichnung, 2023. (Ac-
cessed 21 February 2023).
[68] Österreich e5, Maßnahmen im Überblick, [Online]. Available https://www.e5-gemeinden.at/e5-programm/massnahmen-im-ueberblick, 2023. (Accessed 21
February 2023).
[69] G. Magnin, Freiburg, Växjö, Güssing: Das Netz der Energiestädte, [Online]. Available https://www.naturefund.de/wissen/atlas_des_wissens/atlas_des_klimas/
loesungswege/energiestaedte. (Accessed 21 February 2023).
[70] K. Szetey, E.A. Moallemi, E. Ashton, M. Butcher, B. Sprunt, B.A. Bryan, Co-creating local socioeconomic pathways for achieving the sustainable development
goals, Sustain. Sci. 16 (2021) 1251–1268, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00921-2.
[71] C. Quiroz-Niño, M. Ángeles Murga-Menoyo, Social and Solidarity Economy, Sustainable Development Goals, and Community Development: The Mission of
Adult Education & Training, Sustainability 9 (2017), [Online]. Available https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/12/2164.
[72] K.G. Bardal, M.B. Reinar, A.K. Lundberg, M. Bjørkan, Factors Facilitating the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals in Regional and Local
Planning—Experiences from Norway, Sustainability 13 (2021), [Online]. Available https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4282.
[73] V. Krantz, S. Gustafsson, Localizing the sustainable development goals through an integrated approach in municipalities: early experiences from a Swedish
forerunner, J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 64 (2021) 2641–2660, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1877642.
[74] T.B. Teixeira, R.A.G. Battistelle, A.A. Teixeira, E.B. Mariano, T.E.C. Moraes, The Sustainable Development Goals Implementation: Case Study in a Pioneer
Brazilian Municipality, Sustainability 14 (2022), [Online]. Available https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12746.
[75] M. Salvia, S.D. Leo, C. Nakos, H. Maras, S. Panevski, O. Fülöp, S. Papagianni, Z. Tarevska, D. Čeh, E. Szabó, B. Bodzsár, Creating a sustainable and resource
efficient future: A methodological toolkit for municipalities, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50 (2015) 480–496.
[76] B. Ślusarczyk, K. Grondys, The Concept of Sustainable Development in the Functioning of Municipalities Belonging to Special Economic Zones in Poland,
Sustainability 10 (2018), [Online]. Available https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2169.
[77] P. Fenton, S. Gustafsson, J. Ivner, J. Palm, Sustainable Energy and Climate Strategies: lessons from planning processes in five municipalities, J. Clean. Prod. 98
(2015) 213–221.
[78] Z. Han, S. Jiao, X. Zhang, F. Xie, J. Ran, R. Jin, S. Xu, Seeking sustainable development policies at the municipal level based on the triad of city, economy
and environment: evidence from Hunan province, China, J. Environ. Manag. 290 (2021) 112554, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0301479721006162.
[79] H. Meyar-Naimi, S. Vaez-Zadeh, Sustainable development based energy policy making frameworks, a critical review, Energy Policy 43 (2012) 351–361,
[Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512000158.
[80] R. Bain, R. Johnston, F. Mitis, C. Chatterley, T. Slaymaker, Establishing Sustainable Development Goal Baselines for Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and
Hygiene Services, Water 10 (2018), [Online]. Available https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/12/1711.
[81] F. Razali, D. Daud, C. Weng-Wai, W.R.A. Jiram, Waste separation at source behaviour among Malaysian households: The Theory of Planned Behaviour with
moral norm, J. Clean. Prod. 271 (2020) 122025, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620320722.
[82] Y. Pujara, P. Pathak, A. Sharma, J. Govani, Review on Indian Municipal Solid Waste Management practices for reduction of environmental impacts to
achieve sustainable development goals, J. Environ. Manag. 248 (2019) 109238, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301479719309405.
[83] W.G. Santika, T. Urmee, M. Anissuzaman, G.M. Shafiullah, P.A. Bahri, Sustainable energy for all: Impacts of Sustainable Development Goals implementation on
household sector energy demand in Indonesia, in: 2018 International Conference on Smart Green Technology in Electrical and Information Systems (ICSGTEIS),
2018, pp. 13–18, [Online]. Available https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8709108.
[84] M.O. Dioha, N.V. Emodi, Investigating the Impacts of Energy Access Scenarios in the Nigerian Household Sector by 2030, Resources 8 (2019), [Online].
Available https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/3/127.
[85] J. Fan, Y. Liang, A. jun Tao, K. Sheng, H. Ma, Y. Xu, C. Wang, W. Sun, Energy policies for sustainable livelihoods and sustainable development of poor areas in
China, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 1200–1212, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510008724.
[86] D. Fraisl, J. Campbell, L. See, U. Wehn, J. Wardlaw, M. Gold, I. Moorthy, R. Arias, J. Piera, J.L. Oliver, J. Masó, M. Penker, S. Fritz, Mapping citizen science
contributions to the UN sustainable development goals, Sustain. Sci. 15 (2020) 1735–1751, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00833-7, [Online]. Available.
[87] T. Hák, S. Janoušková, B. Moldan, Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators, Ecol. Indic. 60 (2016) 565–573, [Online]. Available https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X15004240.
[88] A. Miola, F. Schiltz, Measuring sustainable development goals performance: How to monitor policy action in the 2030 Agenda implementation?, Ecol. Econ.
164 (2019) 106373, [Online]. Available https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091930103X.
[89] R.B. Swain, F. Yang-Wallentin, Achieving sustainable development goals: predicaments and strategies, Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 27 (2020) 96–106,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1692316.
[90] R. Costanza, L. Daly, L. Fioramonti, E. Giovannini, I. Kubiszewski, L.F. Mortensen, K.E. Pickett, K.V. Ragnarsdottir, R.D. Vogli, R. Wilkinson, Modelling and
measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Ecol. Econ. 130 (2016) 350–355, [Online]. Available https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915303359.
[91] I. Kubiszewski, K. Mulder, D. Jarvis, R. Costanza, Toward better measurement of sustainable development and wellbeing: A small number of SDG indicators
reliably predict life satisfaction, Sustain. Dev. 30 (2022) 139–148, https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2234.

27
M. Maldet, G. Lettner, C. Loschan et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e19010

[92] P.A. Mischen, G.C. Homsy, C.P. Lipo, R. Holahan, V. Imbruce, A. Pape, W. Zhu, J. Graney, Z. Zhang, L.M. Holmes, M. Reina, A Foundation for Measuring
Community Sustainability, Sustainability 11 (2019), [Online]. Available https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1903.
[93] ISO, ISO 37120:2018: Sustainable cities and communities — Indicators for city services and quality of life, ISO 7 (2018).
[94] S.A. Moschen, J. Macke, S. Bebber, M.B.C. da Silva, Sustainable development of communities: ISO 37120 and UN goals, Int. J. Sustain. High. Education 20
(2019) 887–900, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-01-2019-0020.
[95] O.E.C.D. Council, Better Policies for 2030 An OECD Action Plan on the Sustainable Development Goals, [Online]. Available https://www.oecd.org/dac/Better%
20Policies%20for%202030.pdf, 2016.
[96] OECD Council, Measuring distance to the SDG targets, [Online]. Available https://www.oecd.org/sdd/OECD-Measuring-Distance-to-SDG-Targets.pdf, 2017.
[97] J. Jossin, O. Peters, Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) indicators for municipalities: a comprehensive monitoring approach from Germany, J. Urban. Ecol.
8 (2022) juac020, https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juac020, [Online]. Available.
[98] M. Maldet, RUTIS, https://gitlab.com/team-ensys/projects/maldet_energysystemmodel, 2023. (Accessed 7 February 2023), Online.
[99] M. Maldet, D. Schwabeneder, G. Lettner, C. Loschan, C. Corinaldesi, H. Auer, Beyond Traditional Energy Sector Coupling: Conserving and Efficient Use of Local
Resources, Sustainability 14 (2022), [Online]. Available https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7445.
[100] Verein GeWoZu, Gemeinschaftlich Wohnen Die Zukunft, https://gewozu.at/, 2020. (Accessed 30 January 2023), Online.
[101] Gemeinde Breitenau, Neuigkeiten aus Breitenau, https://www.breitenau.gv.at/. (Accessed 6 February 2023), Online.
[102] Green Energy Lab, Hybrid LSC, https://greenenergylab.at/projects/hybrid-lsc/, 2021. (Accessed 2 February 2023), Online.
[103] IKB, Preisliste für kostenpflichtige Abfälle am Recyclinghof Roßau, [Online]. Available https://www.ikb.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente/Abfall/
Preisliste_Recyclinghof.pdf, 2023. (Accessed 2 March 2023).
[104] Bundesministerium der Finanzen and Juris Das Rechtsportal, Suche in allen AfA-Tabellen, https://afa-tabellen.olexx-web.de/AfA-Tabellen/Suche_batterie,
2023. (Accessed 6 February 2023), Online.
[105] C. Daniel, F. Sattlberger, Kosten von Photovoltaikanlagen, https://www. dachgold. at/photovoltaik-kosten/#Aufteilung_in_fixe_und_variable_Kosten_von_
Solaranlagen, 2022. (Accessed 3 November 2022), Online.
[106] P. Kloth, Kosten für PV-Stromspeicher - Wirtschaftlichkeit im Detail, https://www.energieheld.de/solaranlage/photovoltaik/stromspeicher/kosten#:~:text=
Die%20Kosten%20f%C3%BCr%20einen%20Stromspeicher,meist%20um%20die%2020.400%20Euro, 2022. (Accessed 7 February 2023), Online.
[107] IEA, Cumulative capacity and capital cost learning curve for vapour compression applications in the Sustainable Development Scenario, 2019-2070,
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/cumulative-capacity-and-capital-cost-learning-curve-for-vapour-compression-applications-in-the-sustainable-
development-scenario-2019-2070, 2022. (Accessed 3 November 2022), Online.
[108] E. Tsoukanta, Was kostet eine Wärmepumpe für ein Einfamilienhaus?, https://www.net4energy.com/de-de/heizen/waermepumpe-kosten, 2022. (Accessed 3
November 2022), Online.
[109] Bio fernwärme, Kosten, http://www.biofernwaerme.at/DE/kosten_biofernwaerme_9_DE.html. (Accessed 7 February 2023), Online.
[110] Convex, Müllverbrennungsanlage Zistersdorf Österreich, https://www.convex.at/projekte/mva-zistersdorf/, 2022. (Accessed 7 February 2023), Online.
[111] Samco, How Much Does a Wastewater Treatment System Cost? (Pricing, Factors, Etc.), https://samcotech.com/cost-wastewater-treatment-system/, 2016.
(Accessed 4 November 2022), Online.
[112] M. Johnson, Calculating wastewater treatment plant construction costs, fehrgraham.com/about-us/blog/calculating-wastewater-treatment-plant-construction-
costs-fg, 2022. (Accessed 4 November 2022), Online.
[113] Anders bauen und wohnen, AQUALOOP - Grauwasserrecycling System 300 l/Tag für das Einfamilienhaus - Paketpreis, https://www.abwshop.de/
Wassertechnik/Wasseraufbereitung/Aqualoop/Aqualoop-Systeme/AQUALOOP-Grauwasserrecycling-System-300-l/Tag-fuer-das-Einfamilienhaus-Paketpreis-
96859.html?campaign=google.de, 2023. (Accessed 7 February 2023), Online.
[114] A. Weißbach, Stromverbrauch im Haushalt, [Online]. Available https://www.co2online.de/energie-sparen/strom-sparen/strom-sparen-stromspartipps/
stromverbrauch-im-haushalt/#:~:text=F%C3%BCr%20Deutschland%20gilt%3A%202%20Personen,%20Euro. (Accessed 4 October 2022).
[115] V.S. Gonzalez, Ihr Stromverbrauch im Vergleich zum Durchschnitt: So sparen, https://stromliste. at/nuetzliche-infos/stromverbrauch, 2022. (Accessed 7
November 2022), Online.
[116] A. Rosenkranz, Der durchschnittliche Energiebedarf im Haus, [Online]. Available https://heizung.de/heizung/tipps/der-durchschnittliche-energiebedarf-im-
haus/#:~:text=Single%2DHaushalt%3A%201.000%20bis%202.000,bis%204.500%20Kilowattstunden%20pro%20Jahr, 2020. (Accessed 4 October 2022).
[117] P. Kloth, 2022: Durchschnittlicher Energieverbrauch, https://www.energieheld.de/foerderung/energieberater/durchschnittlicher-energieverbrauch, 2022. (Ac-
cessed 8 November 2022), Online.
[118] M. Jedamzik, Wasserverbrauch im 4-Personen-Haushalt, [Online]. Available https://www.co2online.de/energie-sparen/heizenergie-sparen/warmwasser/
wasserverbrauch-4-personen-haushalt/#c157123. (Accessed 4 October 2022).
[119] Statista, Aufkommen von Haushaltsabfällen je Einwohner in Deutschland in den Jahren 2004 bis 2020, [Online]. Available https://de.statista.com/statistik/
daten/studie/161228/umfrage/haushaltsabfaelle-je-einwohner-seit-dem-jahr-2003/, 2022. (Accessed 4 October 2022).
[120] Landesamt für Umwelt Brandenburg, CO2-Emissionsfaktoren nach Energieträgern, https://lfu.brandenburg.de/cms/media.php/lbm1.a.3310.de/
emissionsfaktoren_co2_2017.pdf, 2018. (Accessed 5 October 2022), Online.
[121] ENBW Fernwärme, EnBW Fernwärme – Ihr Beitrag zum Klimaschutz, [Online]. Available https://assets.ctfassets.net/upmoejz03x66/
6Axj5X3aKICQAEqvqLgxgO/71b392e2f8eca8004308f7967126b590/EnBW_Fernw__rme_Kennzahlen_2020_Bestandskundenflyer_Stand_06.04.2021.pdf, 2020.
(Accessed 7 March 2023).
[122] J.L. Campos, D. Valenzuela-Heredia, A. Pedrouso, A.V. del Río, M. Belmonte, A. Mosquera-Corral, Greenhouse gases emissions from wastewater treatment
plants: minimization, treatment, and prevention, J. Chem. 2016 (2016) 3796352.
[123] IEA Bioenergy, Municipal Solid Waste and its Role in Sustainability, [Online]. Available https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/40_
IEAPositionPaperMSW.pdf.
[124] Wien Energie, Stromerzeugung in Österreich 2021, [Online]. Available https://positionen.wienenergie.at/grafiken/stromerzeugung-in-osterreich/, 2022. (Ac-
cessed 7 March 2023).

28