Embedding the Sustainable Development Goals in IJUSD remit

It is now a little over three years since the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the United Nations General Assembly on 25th of September 2015. The 17 adopted SDGs, 169 targets and over 232 indicators have set a global agenda for sustainable development between 2016 and 2030 (United Nations, 2018). The interlinked underlying principles of SDGs are aimed at enhancing the dignity and livelihoods of people (SDGs 1-7 and 10 dealing with poverty, hunger, health and well-being, education, gender, clean water and sanitation, clean and affordable energy, and inequalities more generally), safeguarding the planet (SDGs 12-15 covering responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below water, and life on land), engendering prosperity (SDGs 8 and 9 dealing with decent work and economic growth, and industry, infrastructure and innovation), promoting peace (SDG 16) and developing partnerships at all levels (SDG 17) for securing sustainable development. We also have a cross cutting SDG for sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11) that highlights the recognition of the importance of cities both in terms of social and economic developments affecting the majority of the global population in this urban century and their wider ecological impacts.

SDGs are a progression of the previous Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) but with major differences in terms of being developed bottom up through a large scale consultation programme with local actors and a wide variety of stakeholders, having an explicit urban goal that was previously lacking, and targeted at all countries not just the global South. It is too soon to make a judgement on the success of this new agenda. Indeed with specific reference to cities Zinkernagle, et al (2018, p2) point out the challenges of localising SDGs and argue that while they “offer a new opportunity to assess cities’ sustainability performance at all levels, it is not clear what benefits or barriers exist with regard to implementing SDGs in cities, the extent to which the SDGs will improve the assessment of the sustainability of a city, or how cities actively contribute and get involved in the global challenge of reaching sustainability.” However, as they also acknowledge, what is clear is that it has reinvigorated the debate on sustainable development and has led to a vast number of follow up actions that are aimed to address the localising challenges through the family of UN agencies as well as regional and local associations, national and local governments, non-governmental organisations and private stakeholders. This is the subject of detailed discussion by Valencia, et al (this issue) in their examination of localisation of SDG 11 and the New Urban Agenda in 7 cities across four continents.

In a sense one may argue that SDGs are too broad in scope and have some goals and principles that may be contradictory. As noted by Valencia et al (this issue) there can certainly be potential conflicts between ending poverty or hunger and protection of the environment in limiting more intensive or greater use of natural resources. However, on the other hand one may also argue that the SDGs are purposefully designed to bring together different dimensions of sustainability for an interlinked and integrated policy agenda that will necessitate evidence based policy making based on interdisciplinary research.

To some degree sustainability research in recent years has made great strides in breaking silos towards more interdisciplinary understanding of environmental and developmental forces impacting on our planet. See for example Leal Filho, et al (2018) for an extensive discussion. However, as the authors acknowledge there is still much scope for expansion of the interdisciplinary approach to enable a more comprehensive and systemic understanding of the different dimensions of sustainability. This is particularly so for the urban context where by definition we are dealing with highly complex, multifaceted and interlinked social, economic and environmental drivers that shape our cities and lives of urban residents with global ecological consequences.

This is then where the International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development comes in to its own. Our departure point was originally to provide a forum not only for cutting edge research for enabling evidence based policy development but also to facilitate breaking down silos and enhancing interdisciplinary work particularly for greater integration of social, economic and environmental pillars of urban sustainability. This provides a perfect fit with the call for enhanced interdisciplinary research that has emanated from the adoption of SDGs. Therefore while in practice the IJUSD remit was always in line with what is now the SDG framework it does create an opportunity for greater clarity of purpose and future direction for the journal. As a result we have refined IJUSD aims and scope to explicitly embrace the Sustainable Development Goals. Here I should emphasise that while we have a specific urban focus it does not mean that we are limited to only covering the debates on SDG 11. On the contrary our remit directly covers many other SDGs within an urban context particularly those related to social and economic developmental policy and practice but also goals relating to adaptation and mitigation such as climate action and affordable and clean energy. At a higher level however our remit can be extended more widely since city functions and expansion impact all SDGs although there would need to be a direct contribution to better understanding and developing ideas, policy and practice of urban sustainability.

We are, therefore, inviting our readers and the wider academic and practitioner communities to use the SDG framework as a catalyst for developing their work in relation to thematically relevant goals, targets and indicators, adopt a more integrated approach that goes beyond their specific subject interests and embraces interdisciplinary perspectives. In this spirit we invite you to contribute to the field through publishing results of your research in the International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development.

In this issue

We begin the discussions of this issue with Sandra Valencia, et al providing the preliminary findings of their timely examination of localisation of SDG 11 and urban related targets and indicators of other SDGs as well as the Urban Agenda in Buenos Aires (Argentina), Cape Town (South Africa), Gothenburg (Sweden), Kisumu (Kenya), Malmö (Sweden), Sheffield (UK), and Shimla (India). Among other actions they argue for clear definition and delimitation of local boundaries in line with local realities, integrated governance facilitating multi-scalar, multi-sectoral and horizontal partnerships between different government levels and societal groups as well as more effective monitoring and evaluation processes.

The next contribution is provided by Yaser Fouda and Deena ElKhazendar who contribute to sustainable development modelling by introducing the Live and Work City Index. Combining different indicators from previous work the model aims to provide a simple but comprehensive integrated framework for enabling a “better quality of life that balances social, environmental and economic needs and offers an indicative picture of the health and wealth of cities for the present and the future.” At the same time same time facilitating monitoring of individual indicators to assist more efficient policy making. The model has been then tested and calibrated using three case studies of Borg Al-Arab city in Egypt, Milton Keynes in UK and Kosice in Slovakia.

The third contribution by Reza Shabanzadeh Namini, et al focuses on liveability in Tehran, Iran. It utilises the TOPSIS decision making criteria to weigh indicators, evaluate the current status and rank the districts of the city in terms of liveability and using GIS to display the results in graphic format according to the different districts. The study contributes to the broader liveability debate and policy making in Tehran by adopting an integrated approach bringing together a range of indicators developed from an exhaustive review of literature and application to all districts of the city in a comprehensive manner. The study identifies with a score of 0.51 even the wealthier districts of Tehran are far from ideal liveable places and calls for a range of interventions to improve different aspects of urban life. These include urban security, environmental health, and transportation facilities but particularly highlighting the critical role of employment generation and income inequality as well as public participation in decision making.

We then move on to examination of green infrastructure provision on informal settlements in Johannesburg, South Africa. Here Olumuyiwa Adegun utilises a qualitative research approach to examine the way residents in the Kya Sands informal settlement utilize green infrastructure and perceptions of their usefulness. The paper concludes that in the absence of government provision residents-led urban greening and environmental management can be an important mechanism for delivery of such services in low-income communities. However, these can be very short term interventions given limited resources and precarious living conditions of the residents and as such there is a need for effective public collaboration with local actors to complement and upgrade these community actions towards a more sustainable long term delivery condition.

In the fifth paper Martin Calisto Friant utilises and interdisciplinary approach combining theories of right to the city, environmental justice and deliberative democracy to analyse participatory budgeting practice and legacy in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Here Calisto Friant argues that while participatory budgeting has been subject to intense examination it has not been sufficiently considered in terms of its contribution to sustainable development. He then goes to suggest that in the context of Porto Alegre “the deliberative and empowering nature of the PB process” “enabled it to bring about socially and environmentally just outcomes as well as fostering people’s right to the city.” Thereby the city becoming a global counter hegemonic beacon of an alternative form of globalisation.

In the final paper Mahmoud Ouria discusses urban sustainability characteristics of traditional bazaars with a case study of Great Bazaar of Tabriz in Iran. Here Ouria highlights the importance of traditional bazaars and similar commercial public spaces to urban environments in many cities across the globe not only I terms of commercial transaction but also enabling social interaction and therefore influencing and shaping local culture and social environment. This paper is particularly relevant to the cities of the global South where traditional bazaars and similar commercial public spaces are relatively prevalent. The paper utilises a multi-method approach including detailed spatial analysis and a two stage survey questionnaire to examine public satisfaction of the Tabriz bazaar environment. He identifies both tangible and intangible factors impacting satisfaction. The former relates to physical spatial functions such as covered and open spaces, which include environment-friendly courtyards and porched walkable passages respectively that contribute to climatic sustainability but also commercial interaction. The latter relate to the social function of the bazaar for “holding rituals, mourning, religious acts, educational programs, hangouts, and even political” campaigning. The two, however, are closely related in that “cultural experiences tend to cohere with the spatial sense of other functions.” Accordingly he ends his paper with a set of 15 recommendations for improving the sustainability of the bazaar and enhancing its socio-economic functions.