The Impact of Urban Inequalities on Monitoring Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: Methodological Considerations

Abstract

There is much discussion regarding the Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs) capacity to promote inclusive development. While some argue that they represent an opportunity for goal-led alignment of stakeholders and evidence-based decision-making, other voices express concerns as they perceive them as a techno-managerial framework that measures development according to quantitatively defined parameters and does not allow for local variation. We argue that the extent to which the positive or negative aspects of the SDGs prevail depends on the monitoring system’s ability to account for multiple and intersecting inequalities. The need for sub-nationally (urban) representative indicators poses an additional methodological challenge—especially in cities with intra-urban inequalities related to socio-spatial variations across neighbourhoods. This paper investigates the extent to which the SDG indicators’ representativeness could be affected by inequalities. It does so by proposing a conceptual framing for understanding the relation between inequalities and SDG monitoring, which is then applied to analyse the current methodological proposals for the indicator framework of the “urban SDG,” Goal 11. The outcome is a call for (1) a more explicit attention to intra-urban inequalities, (2) the development of a methodological approach to “recalibrate” the city-level indicators to account for the degree of intra-urban inequalities, and (3) an alignment between methodologies and data practices applied for monitoring SDG 11 and the extent of the underlying inequalities within the city. This would enable an informed decision regarding the trade-off in indicator representativeness between conventional data sources, such as censuses and household surveys, and emerging methods, such as participatory geospatial methods and citizen-generated data practices.

Global Ambitions, Local Contexts: Alternative Ways of Knowing the World

“…Similar to Brussel et al's [26] critique on the lack of capacity of the access indicator to capture transport inequalities, Ulbrich et al [30] Table A1 in Appendix A), point to the absence of intra-urban inequalities in their framing, and redress it by distinguishing between vertical (income-based), horizontal (social differences) and spatial inequality. For example, the perception of convenient access of the transport indicator (11.2.1), measured by a distance of 500 metres, will differ across specified groups as they have different demands and capabilities.…”

“…The conceptualization of the 232 SDG indicators is the result of an iterative and open negotiation process between multiple stakeholders and shaped by dominant development agendas [4]. Several contributions to this SI [25][26][27][28][29][30] critically examine the framing of specific indicators or the content of goals within their domain. They propose alternative framings or suggestions for inclusions, which they feel provide a more meaningful, scientifically sound and context-specific reference for monitoring and addressing the policy problem.…”

“…Moreover, with the exception of the indicator on improved living conditions (11.1.1), none of the indicators they examined considers intra-urban spatial differentiations, despite the spatial nature of the measured phenomenon such as environmental exposure or transport access. Ulbrich et al [30] suggest that a more explicit focus on intra-urban socio-spatial inequalities in Goal 11 is needed.…”

A Novel Evaluation Approach of County-Level City Disaster Resilience and Urban Environmental Cleanliness Based on SDG11 and Deqing County’s Situation

“…With cities now being home to the majority of the global population, their importance for global development is undisputed [10]. "Building cities and human settlements that are inclusive, safe, adaptable and sustainable" (SDG11) is considered the minimum required for sustainable urban development in the 2030 Agenda.…”

“…At present, the construction of indicator system and proposal of evaluation method for SDGs, included SDG11 "urban sustainable development", are mostly based on the study at national level [10,17,18]. There is little research on how to conduct assessments of relevant indicators for SDG 11 at county level.…”