Fig 1.
Forty-four integrated sustainability issues (24 impact and 36 vulnerability).
See Information B in S1 File for detailed descriptions of each integrated issue.
Fig 2.
Integrated issues linked to sources by perspective.
Each link represents an individual source that mentions the issue. Size of node (and text) corresponds to the number of links. Issue nodes are distributed using a force-directed algorithm (Force Atlas 2 using Gephi 0.8.2) and hence closest to perspectives with which they share the most links. See S3 Dataset.csv for data on each individual source and their issue links.
Fig 3.
Most and least mentioned Integrated Issues across perspectives (top and bottom 25%).
Fig 4.
Percentage of integrated issues considered by each perspective.
Organized sequentially by capital group. Percentage is an average all sampled documents and communications from all three perspectives. Note: Many livelihoods frameworks treat capital groups themselves as very broad issues, and these are not included in this figure. If counted, the breakdown of capital group mentions from the livelihoods perspective is Human (42%), Natural (83%), physical/financial (66.6%), social/political (75%), showing much higher coverage across capital groups, particularly for natural issues.
Fig 5.
Number of related indicators per integrated issue.
Fig 6.
Number of fully-covered component issues for each integrated issue.
See S4 Dataset.csv for a full list of component issues.
Fig 7.
Average number of indicators per component issue (by integrated issue).
A lower average suggests a lack of indicators available to fully cover a given integrated issue. Integrated issues with fewer than two indicators (on average) per component issue are highlighted in red. This threshold of two indicators (on average) per component issue is notated by the dotted line.