FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3215673897> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3215673897 endingPage "1556" @default.
• W3215673897 startingPage "1548" @default.
• W3215673897 abstract "Urban dwellers globally are experiencing systematic and intersectional inequalities—heightened by the COVID-19 crisis. In this regard, the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) have a key role in guiding sustainable and equitable urban planning and development. Yet enduring contradictions across the goals, siloed approaches, or the complexities of implementation, means that SDG localization may fall short of the transformative aim to “leave no one behind.” In this perspective, we provide a practical framework for mobilizing “urban equality” through the 2030 Agenda. We present a content analysis of the intersections between “urban” and “equality” references across the 17 SDGs, and associated targets and indicators, drawing out four key areas for accelerating an urban equality agenda. This framework is presented with the aim of identifying clear opportunities for mobilizing the SDGs through an urban equality lens—and shaping further research, policy, and practice, which ensures that we “leave no urban citizens behind.” Urban dwellers globally are experiencing systematic and intersectional inequalities—heightened by the COVID-19 crisis. In this regard, the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) have a key role in guiding sustainable and equitable urban planning and development. Yet enduring contradictions across the goals, siloed approaches, or the complexities of implementation, means that SDG localization may fall short of the transformative aim to “leave no one behind.” In this perspective, we provide a practical framework for mobilizing “urban equality” through the 2030 Agenda. We present a content analysis of the intersections between “urban” and “equality” references across the 17 SDGs, and associated targets and indicators, drawing out four key areas for accelerating an urban equality agenda. This framework is presented with the aim of identifying clear opportunities for mobilizing the SDGs through an urban equality lens—and shaping further research, policy, and practice, which ensures that we “leave no urban citizens behind.” IntroductionWithin a rapidly urbanizing world, the role of urban citizens and policymakers in driving global sustainable development aspirations—through locally specific initiatives linked with environmental sustainability, to shared prosperity, to wellbeing—is clear. This is an important agenda in social as much as economic and environmental terms, and one made more pressing by the hour, literally. Recent UN world urbanization prospects compellingly showed how fast our many urban areas are growing; for instance, with 77 new dwellers joining Lagos, Nigeria, every hour.1Kundu D. Pandey A.K. World urbanisation: trends and patterns.in: Kundu D. Sietchiping R. Kinyanjui M. Developing National Urban Policies. Springer, 2020: 13-49Google Scholar The challenge of grappling with the size of urbanization is compounded by its inequality: the World Bank estimates the COVID-19 pandemic crisis is set to add at least another 49 million urban poor to the vast numbers of those living in extreme conditions, compounding challenges faced by the one billion residents of informal settlements.2Acuto M. Larcom S. Keil R. Ghojeh M. Lindsay T. Camponeschi C. Parnell S. Seeing COVID-19 through an urban lens.Nat. Sustain. 2020; 3: 977-978Google Scholar In the meantime, cities have progressively become frontlines of the global biodiversity crisis, and borne the brunt of climate-induced natural catastrophes.3Oke C. Bekessy S.A. Frantzeskaki N. Bush J. Fitzsimons J.A. Garrard G.E. Grenfell M. Harrison L. Hartigan M. Callow D. Cotter B. Cities should respond to the biodiversity extinction crisis.NPJ Urban Sustainability. 2021; 1: 1-4Google ScholarIn parallel to these challenges, thousands of local governments have pledged to implement major global commitments such as the Paris Agreement, or the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. This focus goes beyond the global recognition of cities as the primary planetary domain for consumption and production. Rather, it is driven by an emerging “global urban agenda,”4Parnell S. Defining a global urban development agenda.World Dev. 2016; 78: 529-540https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.028Google Scholar espoused not just by cities, but many states and non-governmental organizations, which reconceptualizes cities as sites of sustainability potential—in recognition of their connectivity, sociocultural, and economic diversity. The UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is foremost among these global commitments, momentously aiming to “transform our world” by 2030 through 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). The successor to the Millennium Declaration (similarly built upon eight millennium development goals), the 2030 Agenda broadened the scope of global development, advocating for a universal approach beyond socioeconomic objectives, to couple the needs of “people” with those of the “planet.”5Griggs D. Stafford-Smith M. Gaffney O. Rockström J. Ohman M.C. Shyamsundar P. Steffen W. Glaser G. Kanie N. Noble I. Sustainable development goals for people and planet.Nature. 2013; 495: 305-307https://doi.org/10.1038/495305aGoogle Scholar In addition to outlining key planetary carrying capacities such as climate stability, biodiversity, or ecosystem services, the SDGs emphasize the ethical imperatives of human development, encapsulated in the overarching principle to “leave no one behind.”6Stuart E. Woodroffe J. Leaving no-one behind: can the sustainable development goals succeed where the millennium development goals lacked?.Gen. Dev. 2016; 24: 69-81https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2016.1142206Google ScholarHowever, set against these aspirations is evidence of rising urban inequalities. Within cities across the Global North and South alike, residents experience differentiated access to social, spatial, environmental, and political entitlements, underpinned by intersectional exclusions related to gender, age, ability, class, ethnicity, and other critical identity affiliations.7Kabeer N. “Leaving No One Behind”: the challenge of intersecting inequalities.in: ISSC IDS UNESCO World Social Science Report 2016: Challenging Inequalities: Pathways to a Just World. UNESCO Publishing), 2016: 55-58Google Scholar This urbanization of inequalities represents an enduring challenge which will shape progress toward the 2030 Agenda, even as cities increasingly embrace global commitments.8Freistein K. Mahlert B. The potential for tackling inequality in the sustainable development goals.Third World Q. 2016; 37: 2139-2155https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1166945Google Scholar Crucially, the COVID-19 pandemic has deepened these challenges;9UN Secretary General“COVID-19 in an Urban World” Policy Brief.2020https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/sg_policy_brief_covid_urban_world_july_2020.pdfGoogle Scholar from inequitable vaccine distribution, to a lack of vital infrastructures,10Wilkinson A. Local response in health emergencies: key considerations for addressing the COVID-19 pandemic in informal urban settlements.Environ. Urban. 2020; 32: 503-522https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0956247820922843Google Scholar to policy formulations that disadvantage casualized and informal workers, to increased gendered burdens and violence;11Hankivsky O. Kapilashrami A. Beyond Sex and Gender Analysis: An Intersectional View of the COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreak and Response. Queen Mary University London, 2020https://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/%20global-policy-institute/Policy-brief-COVID-19-and-intersectionality.pdfGoogle Scholar not only disrupting progress toward the SDGs, but entrenching the divides these goals seek to counter.12Ahmed F. Ahmed N.E. Pissarides C. Stiglitz J. Why inequality could spread COVID-19.Lancet Pub. Health. 2020; 5: 240Google Scholar Moreover, as a politically negotiated and universal document, the SDGs represent a plethora of ideological divergencies and motivations, with noticeable silences on some of the important drivers of urban inequalities. These tensions mean it would be possible for SDG localization to fall short of the transformative aim to “leave no one behind,” despite the wider ethos of the 2030 Agenda.These challenges and opportunities animate our discussion, in which we demonstrate a novel, systematic approach to considering urban equality within the 2030 Agenda (Figure 1), as a strategy to “leave no urban citizens behind.” We present here the results of a coding exercise, with two aims: to reflect on the potentials and challenges of adopting urban equality as a “lens” to action the SDGs and to develop a more explicit heuristic and applicable framework, as a way to identify points of leverage, key considerations, and gaps of the 2030 Agenda. This exercise has generated a framework which can be applied by urban advocates as an overlay to existing localization processes—offering guidance on key goals, targets, and indicators that speak to urban equality concerns. At the same time, we also discuss the gaps, omissions, and silences of the 2030 Agenda, with key reflections on how to broaden advocacy and action on urban equality concerns. In presenting this framework, we hope to offer a practical reading for how the SDGs might be leveraged by city officials, activists, civil society groups, or researchers, to center the aspirations of urban equality through the 2030 Agenda.Challenge: Leaving no urban citizen behindIn this perspective, we start from the position that the SDGs offer the opportunity to develop a common urban agenda toward the ethical imperatives of socioeconomic inequality, in tandem with the transformative structural shifts needed to stay within planetary boundaries. Although primarily framed as a mechanism for implementation by UN member states, the 2030 Agenda also emphasizes the need for partnership with non-state actors, such as local authorities, communities, civil society groups, and businesses. City governments in particular are accelerating the uptake of the SDGs, “localizing” the 2030 Agenda by adapting its goals, targets, and indicators to local planning, such as through processes of “voluntary local reviews” (VLRs).13Pipa T. Bouchet M. Next Generation Urban Planning: Enabling Sustainable Development at the Local Level through Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs). Brookings Institution), 2020Google Scholar Likewise, a range of urban actors are increasingly focusing on adapting the 2030 Agenda's rallying call to leave no city,14Acuto M. Parnell S. Leave no city behind.Science. 2016; 352: 873Google Scholar or more directly—no urban citizen—behind, with clear resonance for the four billion urban dwellers today.15Steffen W. Richardson K. Rockstrom J. Cornell S.E. Fetzer I. Bennett E.M. Biggs R. Carpenter S.R. de Vries W. de Wit C.A. et al.Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet.Science. 2015; 347: 736-747https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855Google ScholarHowever, it has also increasingly become clear that SDGs remain an imperfect tool, beset by internal contradictions and omissions, with deep implications for urban inequalities. Critiques have emerged, for instance, on contradictions between different goals, such as the “growth-first” imperatives of the agenda and ecological planetary limits, or if growth is compatible with labor rights for the most vulnerable.16Hickel J. The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: growth versus ecology on a finite planet.Sustain. Dev. 2019; 27: 873-884https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1947Google Scholar For example, historically the call to “significantly increase exports” (target 17.11) has been associated with the suppression of wages of local workers to produce goods cheaply for international markets. This process has inevitably been gendered—as globally the lowest paid work is traditionally held by women.17Razavi S. The 2030 Agenda: challenges of implementation to attain gender equality and women’s rights.Gend. Dev. 2016; 24: 25-41https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2016.1142229Google Scholar In other words, export competitiveness—a key recommended pathway for growth—has been linked with producing gender inequalities.Likewise, despite the holistic nature of the agenda, in both policymaking and practice, its complexity has often resulted in siloed goals and their constituent targets and indicators. For instance, a siloed approach has broadly occurred across institutional alignments (i.e., water utilities focusing exclusively on SDG 4 and SDG 14) or through areas of topical interest (such as climate action and SDG13, or cities and SDG11). This tendency not only reflects the biases and interests of actor groups and organizations seeking to deploy the 2030 Agenda at a sub-national level but also is reinforced by the language of the goals, targets, and indicators. This has critical implications across the 2030 Agenda but is especially significant for cross-cutting agendas, such as urban equality, which are not immediately addressed through a singular “goal.”Others have highlighted gaps between the “politically negotiated” goals and targets, and the “technical” approach to indicator development, which may flatten ideological battles between contested concepts such as sustainability and resilience.18Fukuda-Parr S. Keeping out extreme inequality from the SDG Agenda—the politics of indicators.Glob. Policy. 2019; 10: 61-69https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12602Google Scholar It is telling, for instance, that indicators linked with the “inequalities goal (10), maintain a focus on economic dimensions, losing the more complex discussion of the multidimensional drivers of inequalities. Still others have highlighted that, while the agenda has a strong focus on “inclusion”—advocating for access to crucial infrastructures, food security, or education—it is noticeably silent on the global relations which structure inequalities, such as global debt, tax havens, or the privatization of services.19Liverman D.M. Geographic perspectives on development goals: constructive engagements and critical perspectives on the MDGs and the SDGs.Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2018; 8: 168-185https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820618780787Google Scholar For example, it has been well documented that the privatization of vital infrastructure, such as water, has served to exclude the most vulnerable groups from access.20Bakker K. Archipelagos and networks: urbanization and water privatization in the South.Geograph. J. 2003; 169: 328-341Google Scholar As such, achieving important distributional aims linked with water provision cannot be achieved through market mechanisms alone, and will not reach the poorest without addressing the commodification of resources. Grappling with deeply political legacies of socio-spatial segregation, institutional exclusion, and the maldistribution of environmental risks is crucial to more just and sustainable futures, yet these issues are not always explict within the 2030 Agenda.21López-Morales E. Gentrification in the global south.City. 2015; 19: 564-573Google ScholarDespite these limitations, the SDGs have been enthusiastically taken up and defended by local authorities, urban activists, and scholars. It is this “convening power,” we argue, that offers significant value in global efforts toward sustainable development, with much depending on the negotiation of policy processes, and the ability to leverage on the powerful potentials within the agenda, while orienting decision-making toward equality aims.22Butcher S. Cociña C. Yap C. Levy C. Localising the Sustainable Development Goals: An Urban Equality Perspective. International Engagement Brief #2: Knowledge in Action for Urban Equality. The Bartlett Development Planning Unit), 2021Google Scholar It is this gap that motivates our dual inquiry—to both reflect on the potentials and challenges of mobilizing urban equality through the SDGs, and develop a practical framework to support urban actors in advocating and activating these claims.An urban equality methodology: Beyond SDGs 10 and 11The framework presented here represents a coding exercise to identify “urban” and “equality” terms, and their overlaps, within the 2030 Agenda. Urban equality is often discussed through the lens of two standalone goals: “sustainable cities” (SDG 11);23Koch F. Krellenberg K. How to contextualize SDG 11? Looking at indicators for sustainable urban development in Germany.ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inform. 2018; 7: 464-480https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7120464Google Scholar and “reduction of inequalities” (SDG 10).24MacNaughton G. Vertical inequalities: are the SDGs and human rights up to the challenges?.Int. J. Hum. Rights. 2017; 21: 1050-1072https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2017.1348697Google Scholar However, we argue that the SDGs contain references to urban equality throughout their goals, targets, and indicators, which can be leveraged to guide development. As such, we adopted a two-phased approach, drawing on a multidimensional25Butcher S. Urban equality and the SDGs: three provocations for a relational agenda.Int. Dev. Plann. Rev. 2021; online first: 1-21https://doi.org/10.3828/idpr.2021.6Google Scholar and relational26Mosse D. A relational approach to durable poverty, inequality and power.J. Dev. Stud. 2010; 46: 1156-1178https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2010.487095Google Scholar understanding of urban equality. The conceptual framing was done collaboratively and iteratively by the team, starting with a collective review of relevant literature drawing on concepts of justice, equity, and inclusion, followed by rounds of coding undertaken by one member of the team, through which different dimensions were identified and discussed with the others (Figure 2).Figure 2Coding categories for an urban equality analysisShow full captionThe three interlinked rings representi the three layers of codes used to support analysis: from direct, implied, and potential references.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)First, we coded for each term (“urban” and “equality”) across the 17 SDGs, 169 targets, and 231 unique indicators. This step relied upon “direct” or “implied” variations, as shown in the two inner rings of Figure 2. An analysis of the intersections generated four categorizations: “very strong” (two direct overlaps), “strong” (one direct/one implied), “likely” (two implied), as well as “single” references (in which either urban or equality terms appeared, without overlaps). Then, a broader suite of urban equality goals, targets, and indicators was identified through a second phase, building upon a wider thematic review of urban equality literature. This phase was informed by the normative framing of our conceptual framework, knitting together work on social justice and environmental sustainability27Agyeman J. Environmental justice and sustainability.in: Handbook of Sustainable Development. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014: 188-205Google Scholar as a way of more explicitly articulating the aim to “leave no one behind.”28Gupta J. Vegelin C. Sustainable development goals and inclusive development.Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. L. Econ. 2016; 16: 433-448https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9323-zGoogle Scholar This entailed, for instance, work outlining the distributional dimensions of urban inequalities: including traditional economic measures of poverty and income,29Saiz I. Donald K. Tackling inequality through the sustainable development goals: human rights in practice.Inter. J. Hum. Rights. 2017; 21: 1029-1049https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2017.1348696Google Scholar as well as the ability to access vital infrastructural services,30Lawhon M. Nilsson D. Silver J. Ernstson H. Lwasa S. Thinking through heterogeneous infrastructure configurations.Urban Stud. 2018; 55: 720-732https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017720149Google Scholar and associated environmental risks.31Rademacher A. When is housing an environmental problem? Reforming informality in Kathmandu.Curr. Anthropol. 2009; 50: 513-533https://doi.org/10.1086/604707Google Scholar However, beyond these well-articulated tangible issues, we also take inspiration from justice-oriented work32Fraser N. Reframing justice in a globalizing world.New Left Rev. 2005; 36: 11-39Google Scholar that has also outlined recognitional aspects of inequalities—in acknowledgment of the intersectional deprivations,33Choo H.Y. Ferree M.M. Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: a critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities.Sociol. Theor. 2010; 28: 129-149https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01370.xGoogle Scholar stigma, or exclusions faced by diverse social groups34Cleaver F. The inequality of social capital and the reproduction of chronic poverty.World Dev. 2005; 33: 893-906https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.09.015Google Scholar—as well as representational aspects, outlined in literature on voice and citizen participation in urban decision-making processes,35Gaventa J. Can participation ‘fix’ inequality? Unpacking the relationship between the economic and political citizenship.Coady Int. Inst. Innov. Ser. Innov. Ser. 2016; 5: 1-14Google Scholar substantive citizenship,36Holston J. Appadurai A. Cities and citizenship.Public Cult. 1996; 8: 187-204https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-8-2-187Google Scholar and rights and claims-making processes.37Miraftab F. Insurgent planning: situating radical planning in the global south.Plann. Theor. 2009; 8: 32-50https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095208099297Google Scholar These additional codes were organized through four principal “domains of action”: socioeconomic status, identity groups, rights and justice, and land and urban services (Figure 2). Together, these codes draw out these multidimensional facets—reflecting both explicit and implied references, as well as a broader swathe of codes directly linked with our normative conceptual framework—in recognition of how urban development processes have been unevenly experienced across social groups.Opportunities and tensions for embedding urban equality through the 2030 AgendaBefore outlining the specificities of this coding exercise, we will speak directly to the first aim of this perspective, highlighting three overarching reflections that shape the possibilities for adopting urban equality as a “lens” to read and action the 2030 Agenda. Firstly—despite two clear goals focused on sustainable cities (SDG 11) and inequalities (SDG 10)—our coding revealed zero “very strong” overlaps between “urban” and “equality.” This is important, as while it is well acknowledged that the 2030 Agenda should be read holistically, it is not always clear in practice how to navigate the various synergies and trade-offs contained within this complex framework.16Hickel J. The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: growth versus ecology on a finite planet.Sustain. Dev. 2019; 27: 873-884https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1947Google Scholar As will be explored, without explicit efforts to center the aspirations of urban equality, it is entirely possible to pursue policy, planning, or practice that undermines the claims of urban poor or marginalized groups.38Winkler I.T. Satterthwaite M.L. Leaving no one behind? Persistent inequalities in the SDGs.Int. J. Hum. Rights. 2017; 21: 1073-1097https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2017.1348702Google Scholar Nonetheless, our wider coding of urban equality issues also demonstrates that the broader spirit of the 2030 Agenda could be geared toward issues of urban equality—if this is acknowledged as a guiding principle for decision-making.Secondly, direct or implied references to “urban” issues were found to be more limited (34 coded references) compared with those of equality (60 coded references). We argue that this reflects the fact that references to cities are still relatively narrow; not only in the 2030 Agenda, but within global frameworks more generally.39Kosovac A. Acuto M. Jones T.L. Acknowledging urbanization: a survey of the role of cities in UN frameworks.Glob. Policy. 2020; 11: 293-304Google Scholar We suggest that reflecting on the specifically urban dimensions of inequality is valuable for thinking more broadly. Indeed, this suggestion is supported by the wider ethos of the SDGs, which calls for data disaggregation across a range of features, including geographic location. Yet, as we will argue, reading calls for inclusive access to urban services, education, or public health in urban areas also requires more than simply measuring impacts and gaps across urban and rural areas. Rather, this requires an attention to the specific processes through which inequalities are produced in urban areas.40Soederberg S. Walks A. Producing and governing inequalities under planetary urbanization: from urban age to urban revolution?.Geoforum. 2018; 89: 107-113https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.11.005Google ScholarFinally, distinguishing between the goals and targets of 2030 Agenda—determined through lengthy multilateral negotiations—and indicators, subsequently set out through a technical process by the “Interagency and Expert Advisory Group,” is of crucial importance.18Fukuda-Parr S. Keeping out extreme inequality from the SDG Agenda—the politics of indicators.Glob. Policy. 2019; 10: 61-69https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12602Google Scholar Important distinctions may exist between what might be seen as more ambitious goals and targets, and perhaps more reductive indicators.41Kaika M. “Don’t call me resilient again!”: the New Urban Agenda as immunology … or … what happens when communities refuse to be vaccinated with “smart cities” and indicators.Environ. Urban. 2017; 29: 89-102Google Scholar Likewise, as will be discussed, it is crucial to remain cognizant of those gaps or omissions across the SDGs, reflective of the enduring political challenges of a universally negotiated framework.19Liverman D.M. Geographic perspectives on development goals: constructive engagements and critical perspectives on the MDGs and the SDGs.Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2018; 8: 168-185https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820618780787Google Scholar However, as we argue, there is an opportunity to use an urban equality lens to re-think these gaps through ongoing localization approaches, toward the “transformative” aims of the 2030 Agenda.For an explicit urban equality mandateWith these broader lessons in mind, the core of our framework is based on “strong” overlaps—with a direct acknowledgment of either urban/equality, and an implied mention of the other. These links are illustrated by the “overlapping” of pink and orange shading, and the linking pathway to the targets and indicators below (Figure 3). From this perspective, key intersections sit within only ten references, distributed across four goals.Figure 3Direct and implied linkages to urban equalityShow full captionMaps the direct and implied references to “urban” and “equality” concerns, and their overlaps, across the goals, targets, and indicators of the 2030 Agenda.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)First, and predictably, is SDG 11 (sustainable cities). In addition to a wider goal focused on “inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable human settlements,” there are specific targets that call for “equal access for all” to fundamental urban services, housing, and public space (11.1) and “inclusive” participatory urban planning (11.3).Second, within SDG 4, education, are calls for “equal access” to education (4.5.1), with explicit calls for disaggregation across identity—with particular reference to disabilities, indigenous groups, and children in vulnerable situations.Third, SDG 5, gender equality, includes direct reference to ensuring inclusion “at all levels” of governance, with a specific focus on ensuring women's full and effective participation (5.5), and opportunities in leadership and decision-making. Likewise, means of implementation target 5.c is focused on the adoption of sound policies and legislation, at the “local” level.Finally, it is also worth highlighting an additional (albeit weaker) overlap—between two implied mentions. Within SDG 16 (just, inclusive institutions), is the call for “responsive inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making, at all levels” (16.7). This target echoes the importance of building inclusivity into institutions of urban governance, whether situated at the “local” level or other levels of policymaking.These direct/implied and implied/implied overlaps within four goals (sustainable cities, inclusive education, gender equity, and just institutions) generate important reflections for policymakers and practitioners. They remind us, firstly, of the necessity of strengthening access to the distributional elements required to participate in the public realm, especially equitable access to services, housing, and public space. Secondly of strengthening participation in governance processes, requiring not only participatory structures of decision-making, but also strengthening civic education to support diverse groups to engage meaningfully within such spaces. Finally, important recognitional aspects, expressed through goals on gender equity, as well as more broadly acknowledged when it comes to disaggregating data across identities. Taken together, we argue that these goals speak to vital dimensions of just urban governance,32Fraser N. Reframing justice in a globalizing world.New Left Rev. 2005; 36: 11-39Google Scholar which we see as a critical focal point in leveraging the existing goals and targets to advoc" @default.
• W3215673897 created "2021-12-06" @default.
• W3215673897 creator A5027002043 @default.
• W3215673897 creator A5068055825 @default.
• W3215673897 creator A5085096701 @default.
• W3215673897 date "2021-11-01" @default.
• W3215673897 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W3215673897 title "Leaving no urban citizens behind: An urban equality framework for deploying the sustainable development goals" @default.
• W3215673897 cites W1562840332 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W1985454503 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W1999167944 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2012359435 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2020492380 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2052952043 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2073122003 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2081509620 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2107839191 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2128858209 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2164796586 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2173409559 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2277830546 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2283610685 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2327256007 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2337322475 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2346612763 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2400365300 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2595692298 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2736503891 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2737776997 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2748440121 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2762281346 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2770787468 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2796520885 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2811202958 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2871944742 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2902058169 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2907611840 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2913485549 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2921072221 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2938952789 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W2979527643 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W3005216141 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W3013942622 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W3022831664 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W3082448421 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W3090921050 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W3108891694 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W3131837572 @default.
• W3215673897 cites W4237320441 @default.
• W3215673897 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.015" @default.
• W3215673897 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3215673897 type Work @default.
• W3215673897 sameAs 3215673897 @default.
• W3215673897 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W3215673897 countsByYear W32156738972022 @default.
• W3215673897 countsByYear W32156738972023 @default.
• W3215673897 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3215673897 hasAuthorship W3215673897A5027002043 @default.
• W3215673897 hasAuthorship W3215673897A5068055825 @default.
• W3215673897 hasAuthorship W3215673897A5085096701 @default.
• W3215673897 hasBestOaLocation W32156738971 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConcept C147176958 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConcept C195094911 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConcept C49545453 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConcept C552854447 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConcept C91375879 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConceptScore W3215673897C127413603 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConceptScore W3215673897C144133560 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConceptScore W3215673897C147176958 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConceptScore W3215673897C17744445 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConceptScore W3215673897C195094911 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConceptScore W3215673897C199539241 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConceptScore W3215673897C205649164 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConceptScore W3215673897C49545453 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConceptScore W3215673897C552854447 @default.
• W3215673897 hasConceptScore W3215673897C91375879 @default.
• W3215673897 hasFunder F4320316008 @default.
• W3215673897 hasFunder F4320316481 @default.
• W3215673897 hasFunder F4320334630 @default.
• W3215673897 hasIssue "11" @default.
• W3215673897 hasLocation W32156738971 @default.
• W3215673897 hasOpenAccess W3215673897 @default.
• W3215673897 hasPrimaryLocation W32156738971 @default.
• W3215673897 hasRelatedWork W2013526061 @default.
• W3215673897 hasRelatedWork W2030750977 @default.
• W3215673897 hasRelatedWork W2078312299 @default.
• W3215673897 hasRelatedWork W2357292648 @default.
• W3215673897 hasRelatedWork W2359982472 @default.
• W3215673897 hasRelatedWork W2364007515 @default.
• W3215673897 hasRelatedWork W2370323926 @default.
• W3215673897 hasRelatedWork W2993529100 @default.
• W3215673897 hasRelatedWork W3128848533 @default.
• W3215673897 hasRelatedWork W4250351340 @default.

• next