Mapping Positive Peace Pillars and Indicators in Sustainable Development Research: Co-Benefits, Trade-Offs, and Mediating Factors

To Achieve a Sustainable Blue Future, Progress Assessments Must Include Interdependencies between the Sustainable Development Goals

The need for high quality research to impact sustainability policy and action has been identified in international frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education from 1977 to 1990 (Wright in Int J Sustain Higher Educ 3:203–220, 2002), and repeated by the UK Research Councils (Research Council UK in Research Council UK Submission to House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry into Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 2014). With the emergence of indicators on measuring research for sustainable development in universities (AULSF in Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire, 2009), the research study which forms the focus of this paper, is a first attempt to establish a practical methodology to provide such data. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which sustainable development research was already being carried out across a large university, and whether it was possible to devise a relatively quick and reliable methodology to identify the scope and areas of research being undertaken, which would provide the university with a baseline of existing sustainable development research. The object was to capture and report the existing contributions to sustainable development research and to make an initial assessment of its current impact and contribution towards research excellence at the university. The work of 465 staff was analysed using content and thematic analysis to identify those relating to sustainable development, broadly defined as ‘economic, social, environmental, community, wellbeing, global and future equity’. The analysis identified both researchers interested in sustainable development research issues, and those currently researching sustainable development. The research also identified the degree to which published research showed evidence of a set of key external viability factors identified as: ‘sustainability content’, ‘research impact’, and ‘knowledge transfer viability’. The methodology is intended to be replicable at other times and in other universities. It promises to raise the profile of sustainable development research internally, enabling further and meaningful engagement with the researchers it identifies, and encouraging cross-faculty working, potentially providing a rationale for researchers to engage in sustainable development as an exciting discipline in it’s own right, contributing solutions to contemporary issues.

Systematic research and comprehensive analyses allow to monitor the implementation of the sustainable development goals. Obviously, when you are interested in the selected issue of sustainable development, it is worth using data from the secondary sources in the first place. This e-book presents a few selected methods that will allow you to answer the questions: how to gather data and how to analyse them? Among the data collection methods presented in this book, we have chosen both: qualitative, in particular focus group interview, and quantitative—based on a questionnaire. In terms of data analysis methods, we present three methods: factor analysis, structural equation modelling and data envelopment analysis. The examples presented in this book relate to sustainable development, for example: sustainable consumption, ecological culture, better nutrition, agricultural development and many more. The book consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 “Qualitative methods” presents the issues concerning the methodology of qualitative research, designing a focus group interview, conducting a focus group interview and analysis of qualitative data using the CAQDAS programs. The main goal of Chapter 2 titled “Quantitative methods” is to exhibit the basics of survey research that can be used in analyses of sustainable development. In particular, this part presents the measurement levels, questionnaire design, population and sample, and the ways of presenting the results of quantitative research. Chapter 3 “Factor analysis in sustainable development research” describes the basic theoretical aspects of factor analysis. The second part of this chapter presents an example of the use of this method in research on sustainable consumption. The last part of this chapter presents case study of the use of factor analysis in research on managers’ ethics in retail industry. Chapter 4 titled “Structural equation modelling in sustainable development research” is dedicated to the structural equation modeling methods applied to solve sustainable development research problems. A structural equation model is an abstraction of reality, and the researcher's job is to build a model that approximates that reality as closely as possible. And the aim of Chapter 5 “Data envelopment analysis methods in sustainable agricultural development research” is to determine the relative technical efficiency of representative agricultural farms from the individual European Union countries.

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals Requires Transdisciplinary Innovation at the Local Scale

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have gained a lot of interest due to the partial success of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in eradication of poverty and human development. India has taken a lot of initiatives to meet the targets for the same and have achieved progress in this regard. The MDGs were particularly helpful in communicating a clear purpose of development aid to mobilize public support. The SDGs seek to address not only the root causes of poverty but also the universal need for sustained development to provide a life of dignity to all. The main objectives of the present study are; to examine the performance of Millennium Development goals (MDGs) and make a comparison with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in India; to compare the component wise progress and policy initiatives of MDGs and SDGs in India; and to analyze the current progress of SDGs in India and also make a comparison among Indian states using the report of SDG India Index 2019. The data has collected from various official publications of UN, Government of India, NITI Aayog, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. The present study finds that SDG proposals will ensure momentum generated by MDGs is carried through to 2030 to end deprivations. India’s achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals will require a focus on the acceleration of inclusive economic growth; guaranteed access to comprehensive social services; vast investment in basic infrastructure and women’s empowerment. The present study is an attempt to analyze these issues in India.

Geospatial data has proven useful for monitoring urbanization and guiding sustainable development in rapidly urbanizing regions. The United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Indicator 11.3.1 leverages geospatial data to estimate rates of urban land and population change, providing insight on urban land use expansion patterns and thereby informing sustainable urbanization initiatives (i.e., SDG 11). Our work enhances a UN proposed delineation method by integrating various open-source datasets and tools (e.g., OpenStreetMap and openrouteservice) and advanced geospatial analysis techniques to automate the delineation of individual functional urban agglomerations across a country and, subsequently, calculate SDG Indicator 11.3.1 and related metrics for each. We applied our automated geospatial approach to three rapidly urbanizing countries in Africa: Ethiopia, Nigeria, and South Africa, to conduct multi-level examinations of urban land use expansion, including identifying hotspots of SDG Indicator 11.3.1 where the percentage growth of urban land was greater than that of the urban population. The urban agglomerations of Ethiopia, Nigeria, and South Africa displayed a 73%, 14%, and 5% increase in developed land area from 2016 to 2020, respectively, with new urban development being of an outward type in Ethiopia and an infill type in Nigeria and South Africa. On average, Ethiopia’s urban agglomerations displayed the highest SDG Indicator 11.3.1 values across urban agglomerations, followed by those of South Africa and Nigeria, and secondary cities of interest coinciding as SDG Indicator 11.3.1 hotspots included Mekelle, Ethiopia; Benin City, Nigeria; and Polokwane, South Africa. The work presented in this study contributes to knowledge of urban land use expansion patterns in Ethiopia, Nigeria, and South Africa, and our approach demonstrates effectiveness for multi-level evaluations of urban land expansion according to SDG Indicator 11.3.1 across urbanizing countries.

The article analyzes the quality of (statistical) information support for monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and assesses the quality of their indicators. The author identifies the elements of the SDG data and its statistics, mainly indicators, data sources, data quality, disaggregation, exchange, monitoring and reporting. The Global edition of the Sustainable Development Report is considered, which allows to assess progress in achieving the SDGs, to analyze the positioning of countries in terms of the overall productivity rating and spillover score. The possibilities of an interactive dashboard to visualize the effectiveness of countries for each goal to determine further priorities are revealed. The author substantiates the interpretation of trends in the SDG indicators by the effectiveness of their achievement in accordance with the growth rate, the status of achieving the target values and the direction of dynamics. In order to assess the quality of the SDG data, the author compares the reports prepared by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Commission's statistical organization (Eurostat). It is found that the use of different methodologies and a set of indicators leads to different assessments of progress in implementing the SDGs, distortion of the results leading to unreasonable management decisions at the global, regional and national levels. Particular attention is paid to data gaps, blind spots in the dashboard, which lead to problems in adequately assessing the progress of countries in achieving the 2030 Agenda and sustainable development policies. It is proved that in the context of Ukraine's integration with the EU, it is important to develop and implement a national system of SDG targets and indicators. It is stated that this will be facilitated by the implementation of a UN project to compensate for the gap in international statistics, taking into account the serious consequences of the war in Ukraine on the SDGs. It is noted that the practice of disclosing business indicators of sustainable development and impact through open reporting is becoming a source of effective data collection, analysis, and exchange. The results of the study provide practical recommendations for improving statistical support to improve SDG monitoring through the use of unofficial data and alternative sources to fill in blind spots and information gaps.

Abstract: While building the necessary institutional and human resource capacity for sustainable development represents an important global issue, it remains one of if not the most critical issue in the Asia-Pacific region. The ecological consequences of rapid industrialization have become all too visible in recent years as the region’s natural resources and biodiversity continue to deteriorate at an alarming rate. At the same time, there has been an increasing call for universities and academic institutions, as the main training ground for the next generation of regional political and business leaders, to respond to this policy challenge in a proactive manner. The specific modality of the sustainable development research and educational agenda may vary between countries and universities, but as institutional symbols of new ideas and policy innovation, universities and research institutes will have to take more concrete steps toward environmentally sustainable development. Using the experiences of Japan’s Keio University at the Shonan Fujisawa campus, Thailand’s Asian Institute of Technology, and United Nations University’s Institute of Advanced Studies, this article discusses the role of universities and research institutes in promoting human resource and institutional capacity building, and designing an effective sustainable development research and educational agenda. Three key issues will guide this institutional development. First, what role if any will APEC play in sustainable development research and education? Second, how will the concerns of the private sector and nongovernmental organizations be reflected in sustainable development research and education? Third, what is the future of regional academic cooperation in sustainable development research and education ?

1st International Conference on Biodiversity and Sustainable Development 2021, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia The 1st International Conference on Biodiversity and Sustainable Development 2021 (iBIOSDG 2021) was virtually hosted by Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia, on 23-24 November 2021. Due to the COVID-19 travel and event restrictions as well as many other uncertainties, it is ideal for this conference to run virtually and to keep abreast with the progress in research despite of COVID-19. iBIOSDG 2021 is the first international conference exclusively focused on biodiversity and sustainable development research and innovation. The Institute for Biodiversity and Sustainable Development (IBSD), Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Shah Alam, Malaysia is incredibly honoured and privileged to host the first iBIOSDG2021 with the theme, ‘Biodiversity in the 21st century: Transformation in biological diversity and science in supporting the Sustainable Development Goals’ supported by Department of Wildlife and National Parks (PERHILITAN) and Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM). This conference has one plenary speaker, four keynote speakers with three parallel sessions with three breakout rooms at each session. Plenary and keynote speakers are given one hour each to deliver their talk while parallel room is given 15 minutes for each presenter via Webex platform. A total of 75 accepted papers with 268 authors from Malaysia, India, Indonesia, UAE, UK, and Yemen has participated and contributed to this conference. iBIOSDG2021 aims to highlight research and innovation that demonstrates how diverse fields and disciplines can work together to conserve and protect the ecosystem for the benefit of human life. It is widely recognised that biodiversity is one of the most effective levers for achieving sustainability and provides a forum for discussion and exchange of ideas about the most effective ways to connect universities, research institutions, government, industry, and experts from around the world. As a conference focused on sustainable development, iBIOSDG2021 pooled and assisted prospectus research fraternity in sourcing, comprehending, determining, and recognising available and updated research methodology varieties. The organising and technical committees of iBIOSDG2021 seek to establish the conference as a renowned platform and annual venue for transnational intellectual discourse. More than a showcase of the state of the art in research creativity and innovation, this conference served as a reflection on how to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 (SDGs). List of Committee are avilable in this pdf.

The approaches and roles of pro forma and strategic ambiguity can be formidable in governance and research for sustainable development, but tend to create challenges, issues, and opportunities. Whereas pro forma strategies may provide a structured approach for assessment, ascertainment, progression, and assurance of transparency, on the contrary, strategic ambiguity can variably suppress implementation, management, and accountability. Globally, through the lenses of pro forma, strategic ambiguity and conventional presentations, it is important to elucidate the intricate challenges, issues and opportunities concerning sustainable development, particularly focusing on environment, health and healthcare delivery, agriculture, insecurity and governance. These highlight the multifaceted impacts of climate change and socio-political instabilities, proposing a holistic approach to sustainable governance. Whether by regulatory affairs using pro forma approaches and/or strategic ambiguity in governance and/or research, the erstwhile and extant journals or records constitute greater than mere historical depositories or memoirs. However, their usage must be appreciated constructively and collaboratively with caution, transparency, credibility, and ethical standards. We must keep in mind that flexibility is key, taking into cognizance that as policy makers, scholars, lawmakers, and politicians continue to debate pro forma and strategic ambiguity with further increases in citizen participation in local, regional, and global affairs, as applicable to humanity. It is pertinent that a vast majority of valiant stakeholders in research and governance encompassing environment, agriculture, insecurity, and employment in convergence with interdisciplinary approaches of pro forma and strategic ambiguity to tinker with challenges, issues, and opportunities, which will pave the pathways for sustainable development in our society. In the absence of challenges, issues, and opportunities, there will be stagnation and no exploration in diverse aspects of scientific and technological advancement, without inter alia insecurity, maladministration, hunger, and unemployment. Formulating an equilibrium between these pathways is pivotal to achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs). The appreciation and insights of pro forma and strategic ambiguity of research into governance and sustainable development are of extant value and pertinence with cognizance in enhanced future refurbishments, which ensure and encompass the expansive potential in geopolitics and sustainability. Embracing both pro forma approaches and strategic ambiguity may be promising in research and governance for sustainable development, human welfare, and wellbeing. However, it is pertinent to understand the nuances and potential caveats. Pro forma provides a structured framework for planning and evaluation, whereas strategic ambiguity grants the latitude for flexibility and adaptability in intricately complex situations. Both require careful management to avoid hindering progress or stifling trustworthiness.

The United Nations (UN) adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015. The agenda consists of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) for the 2015–2030 period. To pertain these SDGs, 169 targets have been set. To measure these 169 targets, 230 indicators have been developed. UN member states are required to produce reports on their progress of SDG implementation at various stages between 2015 and 2030. One of the key scientific issues identified by researchers is to develop effective approaches to visualizing the status and trends in SDG indicators and to communicate the result to policy makers and other end users. Addressing these challenges, this paper therefore describes the functional requirements for the dynamic and multi-dimensional visualization of SDG indicators. Firstly, the graphic representation requirements are discussed. In this discussion, a “where-when-what” system is described to categorize SDG indicators into nine scenarios and then the graphic representation requirements for visualizing these scenarios are identified. The effectiveness of the different sets of representational variables for such graphics is examined. Secondly, it is argued that some analysis capacity is required, and the set consisting of “identify”, “compare”, “rank”, “associate” and “delineate” is recommended. It is also suggested that such analysis functions can be implemented in simple query forms and graphic requirements for the query results are examined. It is anticipated that these function forms a framework for the dynamic visualization of SDG indicators.

Analyzing the Complexity of Sustainable Development Goals and Indicators

This study focuses on international summits which have defined the framework of sustainability, and which have played an important role in the emergence and development of the concepts, sustainability and sustainable development in the recent past. The paper concentrates on the effects of international summits between the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972) and HABITAT III (2016) (Quito), which can be defined as milestones. Furthermore it explores the developments in Turkey with respect to the selected indicators for sustainable development goals and the process of achieving such goals that are identified in a global scale in the 2015 United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Summit.

Geospatial data play a significant role in the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, particularly through assessments of monitoring indicators. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Indicator 11.3.1 assessments utilize land and population geospatial data to monitor urban expansion, and were implemented to enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization, and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries by 2030. Data-limited countries often rely on accessible, wide-coverage geospatial datasets for SDG Indicator 11.3.1 assessments which may have characteristics (e.g., coarse spatial resolution) influential to assessment outcomes. The presented work examines the effect of land use data spatial resolution on SDG Indicator 11.3.1 assessment components including urban area delineation, SDG Indicator 11.3.1 and supporting spatial metrics, spatial patterns of urban land development, and land use change patterns for urbanizing areas in Ethiopia from 2016 to 2020. A comparison was made between a single land use map at the spatial resolution in which it was originally produced, 30 m, and at a majority-resampled spatial resolution comparable to many global coverage datasets, 90 m. Analyses revealed changes in the urban areas identified, observed boundaries of urban areas, and all quantified metrics from 30 m resolution to 90 m resolution, with the decrease in resolution resulting in smaller urban areas being missed and differences in the delineated hinterland areas connected to an urban core. Statistical testing indicated significant differences in SDG Indicator 11.3.1 values, developed land use area per capita, and spatial patterns of urban development between the two spatial resolutions. The relative order of land use conversion types remained similar across both resolutions, with agricultural land experiencing the greatest conversion to developed land, followed by rangeland and forest, although the total area of each conversion type differed. This study illustrates the possible discrepancies in SDG Indicator 11.3.1 and related outputs when utilizing differing resolution datasets and the importance of data characteristic consideration when conducting SDG Indicator 11.3.1 assessments.

Land degradation (LD) is a critical environmental challenge caused by human activities and climate change. Reversing degraded land requires effective LD monitoring. The UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicator 15.3.1, "Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area," was established to assess and report LD status at regional and global levels. However, SDG indicator 15.3.1 requires comprehensive, consistent, easily accessible data and would induce large uncertainty, especially in mountainous regions. This study assesses LD in Southern China's mountainous regions by integrating national and global land cover (LC) datasets with a customized LC transition matrix to improve the effectiveness of UN SDG indicator 15.3.1 for LD assessment. The national LC transition matrices were tailored to align with the specific context of the study region and the country's ecological restoration policies and ecosystem services. The results of LD by national LC datasets were compared with the global (default) datasets provided by the Trend.Earth plugin in QGIS. Both sets of results were then compared with the validated LD findings. Using default LC datasets, 20.58% of land areas were classified as degraded, compared to 12.74% with national LC datasets. Land improvement assessed by national data was 7.58% higher than the default datasets. The LD results by national datasets and customized LC transition were closest to the validated LD data, with 94% overall accuracy. Therefore, incorporating national LC datasets and a customized LC transition matrix into UN SDG indicator 15.3.1 could enhance the effectiveness of assessing LD in mountainous regions.