Nature - USA (2020-01-02)

76 | Nature | Vol 577 | 2 January 2020

Article

Anhui

Beijing

Chongqing

Fujian

Gansu

GuangxiGuangdong

Guizhou

Hainan

Hebei

Heilongjiang

Henan

Hubei

Hunan

Inner Mongolia

Jiangsu

Jiangxi

Jilin

Liaoning

Qinghai Ningxia

Shaanxi

Shandong

Shanghai

Shanxi

Sichuan

Taiwan

Tianjin

Tibet

Xinjiang

Yunnan

Zhejiang

1,000 km

N

40° N

30° N

20° N

40° N

30° N

20° N

40° N

30° N

20° N

40° N

30° N

20° N

a b

90° E 100° E 110° E120° E90° E100° E110° E120° E

90° E 100° E 110° E120° E90° E100° E110° E120° E

c d

SDG Index

<40

40–4 2

42–43

43–4 4

44–4 5

45–4 8

48–5 0

50–5 1

51–5 5

55–5 8

>58

NA

Fig. 2 | Spatial pattern of SDG Index scores in 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015 for
31 Chinese provinces. a, 2000. b, 2005. c, 2010. d, 2015. The data for the base
map was derived from the Resource and Environment Data Cloud Platform^39

and we generated the scores. For other data sources, see Methods. NA, not

available.

30

40

50

60

70

Bottom 5 developing provinces Top 5 developed provinces

SDG Index score SDG Index score

Year

2000

2005

2010

2015

Year

2000

2005

2010

2015

a

30

40

50

60

70

Developing provinces Developed provinces

b

Fig. 3 | Comparison of average SDG Index scores for different groups of
provinces in China. a, The top five developed (richest) provinces and the
bottom five developing (poorest) provinces in China in 2000, 2005, 2010 and
2015 are compared. b, The developed provinces and developing provinces in

China in 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015 are compared. The vertical lines within the

bar indicate the standard error in SDG Index scores (n = 80). For the data

sources and a detailed definition for each category of province, see Methods.