Applying the SDGs to cities: business as usual or new dawn?

Abstract

With growing urbanisation the sustainability of cities has become increasingly important. Although cities have been using indicators for a long time it is only in the last decades that attempts have been made to collate indicators into indicator sets with the aim of reflecting the many different aspects that need to be covered to assess the sustainability of a city. The aim of this paper is to review how indicators for monitoring sustainable urban development have evolved over time and compare them to the indicators suggested by the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The review reveals that previous indicator sets emphasised environmental sustainability, health and economic growth. It is also shown that indicator sets that pre-date the SDGs lacked dimensions such as gender equality and reduced inequalities. In all, the SDG indicators provide the possibility of a more balanced and integrated approach to urban sustainability monitoring. At the same time, a methodology is needed to facilitate the adaptation process of localising the SDGS, targets and indicators. Challenges of local application include their large number, their generic characteristics and the need to complement them with specific indicators that are more relevant at the city level.

Adapting the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda to the city level: Initial reflections from a comparative research project

“…However, municipalities can take advantage of their existing monitoring mechanisms, when available, and complement them with relevant and locally adapted SDG indicators and even with other sustainability indicator frameworks (consideration no. 5) (see, for instance, Zinkernagel et al 2018).…”

“…The explicit recognition of subnational entities by national governments, which are the signatories of these agendas, highlights the need for collaborative integrated multi-level governance Simon 2013, 2018;see Considerations no. 2 below) Both these agendas are ambitious, comprehensive and, arguably, socially progressive (Watson 2016;Zinkernagel et al 2018). While achieving them universally may not be feasible within the agreed timeframe, if taken seriously, they can provide an opportunity for rethinking urban planning and development in all countries with all three dimensions of sustainability (social, environmental and economic) in mind.…”

Sustainable Development Goals Connectivity Dilemma

“…Normally, the different scales of measurement are regarded as keys to open the black box of SDGs at both global and local levels. Therefore, the massive indicators are developed by different authorities, for example, the UN Habitats Urban indicator programme, Commission for Sustainable Development's Sustainable Development Indicators, EU's Urban sustainability indicators, European Common Indicators, OECD's Better Life Index, ISO 37 120 indicators (Sustainable development of communities), and the indicator of SDGs reported by World Council of City Data (WCCD) [91,95].…”

Electric Mobility in East-Africa: How the Policy and Stakeholder Environment Tackles the Integration of Informal Transport Systems Into Low-Carbon Transition – Case Studies From Kigali, Kisumu, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam

“…For instance, some authors argue that documents like the New Urban Agenda reinforce path dependency on techno-managerial approaches and ecological transformation paradigm, even though those have failed to work in the past 6 . Similarly, the SDGs are discussed to require stronger integration in local contexts and their evaluation measures to integrate more robust qualitative components 7 . On a broader level, even some of the most acknowledged eco-friendly planning solutions, such as promotion of compact city design, walkability and public transportation, may have adverse social effects and lead to displacement or marginalisation of low-income groups 8 9 .…”