Dear Hernan,

The measurement of the fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at national, regional, and hemispheric levels is a complex and multifaceted task. While there are several methodologies employed for this purpose, it is important to assess their effectiveness in providing accurate and meaningful assessments. One dominant methodology used to measure the fulfilment of the SDGs is the indicator-based approach. This approach involves the development and utilization of specific indicators to assess progress towards each goal. These indicators, based on validated data sources, provide measurable benchmarks against which progress can be tracked. This methodology allows for a standardized and systematic evaluation of the SDGs across different scales and locations. Another methodology gaining prominence is the qualitative research approach. Qualitative research methods provide valuable insights into the lived experiences, perceptions, and attitudes of individuals and communities in relation to SDG progress. Through interviews, focus groups, and case studies, researchers can capture nuanced information that may not be quantifiable, yet crucial for understanding the underlying social dynamics and behavioral challenges affecting progress. Furthermore, network analysis and systems thinking methodologies are being increasingly employed to analyze the interconnectedness and interdependencies among the SDGs. These approaches recognize that progress in one goal can have positive or negative effects on others, emphasizing the need for a holistic understanding of the SDGs' interlinkages. However, it is vital to critically examine the methodologies used to claim progress towards the 2030 SDGs agenda. With the ongoing climate crisis and Earth's ecological breakdown, we must ensure the effectiveness and robustness of these methodologies. This necessitates interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists to address the pressing challenges. Scientists need to examine the methodologies employed by their peers, focusing on transparency, replicability, and accuracy of data sources. Moreover, the issue demands a shift in perspective from a purely technological lens to a broader consideration of behavioral aspects. While technological advancements and Earth observation systems play a crucial role, they should be complemented by an understanding of human behavior, social systems, and governance structures. Behavioral change is essential to address the underlying causes and barriers to achieving the SDGs. To avoid groundless discourses and ensure meaningful progress, a comprehensive system of systems regarding Earth observation is necessary. This entails integrating data from various sources, such as remote sensing, citizen science, and socio-economic data, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complex challenges we face. In conclusion, measuring the fulfilment of the SDGs requires a combination of methodologies, including indicator-based approaches, qualitative research, network analysis, and systems thinking. However, it is crucial to critically assess these methodologies and ensure they account for the interconnectedness of the goals and the behavioral aspects of human activity. Addressing the challenges of the 2030 SDGs agenda requires interdisciplinary collaboration and a comprehensive Earth observation system, accompanied by behavioral change strategies.

Dear Arman,

Thanks a lot for your input...!

I will be back to you to explain why I asked that question here (in ResearchGate).

I am not too unfamiliar with that topic, nevertheless it is urgent to start challenging those outcomes as the climate-ecological crisis seem to be unstoppable.

'See you' in the very near term (few days ahead),

Hernan L.

The world’s goals to save humanity are hugely ambitious — but they are still the best option

Not one of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals looks set to be achieved by 2030. But deadlines can help focus the mind, and scientists should double down on their work to support the goals...

Only about 12% of the targets are now likely to be met by the deadline, and on around 30%, progress has stagnated or gone backwards. An estimated 575 million people will still be living in extreme poverty in 2030. By that time, the world is also likely to have broken the goal of limiting global warming to within 1.5 °C of pre-industrial temperatures, which was agreed at the 2015 Paris climate summit. And on the current trajectory, gender gaps and discrimination will not be eliminated for another 286 years.

Although this state of affairs is demoralizing, it would be wrong to give up. Failure to achieve a worthy goal is not a reason to abandon it. It’s a reason to study what went wrong, regroup and adjust course — for 2030 and beyond...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02686-3

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02098-3

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02844-7

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are targets for global development that were adopted in 2015. All countries have agreed to work towards achieving them by 2030.

Our SDG Tracker presents data across all available indicators from the Our World in Data database, using official statistics from the UN and other international organizations. This free, open-access information tracks global progress towards the SDGs and allows people worldwide to hold their governments accountable for achieving the agreed goals.

Data is available for many indicators, but there are still gaps...

https://ourworldindata.org/sdgs

Good day Ljubomir,

I do appreciate vey much your inputs... I will still uploading some analysis about this relevant issue because of three main reasons and standpoints, say:

(1) I do think, and I am trying to raise the alert that the 2030 SGS agenda is, already, compromised. That "failure" is a risky one as the global breakdowns (Climate and Earth's ecology) keep a speeding-up trends while getting more overlapping and interconnected (non-linear feedback among them).

(2) Global community (scientists and no-scientific people: lawyers, politicians, political scientists, government members, economists, and journalists) speak a lot about "Sustainable Development" (SD) in the millions of already published papers, speeches, policy papers, white papers reports , and articles (press) an it seems they can not find any difference between the "weak" SD version form the hard one. The "weak" one was adopted in the 1990s becoming the ultimate paradigm without carrying out ant strong analytical analysis of what would mean to adopt such a "weak" notion. I also think that many scientists that are part of this community (Research Gate) still can not make a strong exercise (by mathematical means only not just simple words) to make the case what they refer to when speaking about "Sustainable Development". In fact, that concept got meaningless several years ago. I urge scientists to make a case on this and explain in their papers what version are using and how their conclusions should be taking into account (validate them or not). In other words, we have to provide a range of validity to our conclusions depending if we use the "weak" or the "hard" version.

(3) I attend to several webinars and read a lot of papers on the 2023 SDGs agenda... For many , many people the methodology does not seem to care so much to them... Several reports that have been published do not provide any clue of what methodology they use and what are the range of validity of those conclusions that were obtained from "measuring the rate of progress" in any particular goal. It is being obvious to me that we (humans) will have to prioritize some of the seventeen (17) goals... This is my suggestion: No. 4, No. 6, No. 12, No. 13, No. 14 and No. 15.

I am willing to participate in hard-thinking workshops, publish joint analytical (with policy-making implications) papers and/or developing sound (also with policy-implications) research projects dealing with the urgent need to adopt the "hard" approach to SD and put humanity in the equation and the size of the human population as a key variable inside that reformulated scheme...

You can fin me here for further and farther discussions and exchanges of ideas, while building prospective joint operational cooperation opportunities.

Regards,

Hernán L. Villagran

Dear Hernan L. Villagran , I find this blog appropriate for your research question.

WHY EMBRACE SDGS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION?

"Medical research and publication underpin the success of several SDGs—most notably Good Health and Well-Being (SDG #3) and Quality Education (SDG #4). As technology advances and the quantity and availability of research expands through open science and data sharing initiatives, international collaboration and interdisciplinary research has become more attainable and practical than ever before. By dedicating time, funds, and resources into fulfilling the SDGs, the medical research and publication industry can create strong collaborations and partnerships to accelerate accessibility and quality across all dimensions of healthcare...

There are several ongoing initiatives that will continue to support SDG adoption and growth in the medical research industry:

• Emphasize systems thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the intersectionality of SDGs.
• Embrace advocacy and policymaking.
• Support adoption of a universal SDG taxonomy.
• Support data sharing and open science..."

https://blog.cabells.com/2024/03/06/embracing-sdgs-in-medical-research-publishing/

Article Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and their implementati...