Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
With the Earth system being about to leave Holocene conditions and thus the known safe operating space for humanity, frameworks such as the Planetary Boundaries (PBs) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide quantitative metrics to guide sustainability transformations. In order to strive, not only for compliance with the PBs but also for societal well-being, some approaches attempt to combine both PBs and SDGs within a single assessment. We focus on two prominent examples, the “Doughnut” by Kate Raworth and the #SDGinPB project of the 2018 report to the Club of Rome, which are not only aimed at public outreach, but also at guiding policy-making. To meet these objectives, the approaches should possess a certain accuracy in determining the progress in achieving the SDGs and in complying with the PBs. We evaluate, by using a multi-indicator approach for comparison, whether both approaches’ limited set of indicators can still represent the SDGs’ complexity. This comparative approach estimates the progress in achieving SDGs, especially in the Global North, to be significantly lower. Based on these results and against the approaches’ purposes, we discuss their simplifications and at which point the results are no longer reliable. We conclude that global assessments can be an important factor in initiating transformative processes by stimulating public discourse, but that the actual implementation of these would require approaches with greater recognition of local particularities.
The Global South is facing severe challenges in ensuring livelihood security due to climate change impacts, environmental degradation and population growth as well as changing lifestyles. These complex problems cannot be solely solved by single scientific disciplines – they require transdisciplinary research (TDR). Stakeholders from civil society, the corporate sector, government and science need to pool their knowledge to find solutions for sustainable transformations. In Namibia, we have been involved in TDR projects on water supply, and sanitation services as well as livestock management in rangeland systems. In this paper, we review two TDR projects that differ in multiple ways and hence allow us to carve out structural differences and critically discuss research outcomes, lessons learned and the challenge of North–South collaborations. Our review builds upon published and unpublished project documents as well as expert interviews with Namibian and German researchers who were involved in the projects. Our results show that TDR can be put into practice in different ways, depending on the research focus and the period available. The TDR phases of problem framing, inter- and transdisciplinary integration were implemented with different tools and foci points. We discuss the role of project length and funding conditions for project success and outcome generation. In addition, we critically consider the role of Namibian and German researchers in these international collaborations. The conclusions we draw touch upon the points of preparatory research funding, the equal acknowledgement of Global South contributions to joint research projects and the explicit handling of TDR components in project work. Significance: • The current social-ecological challenges are complex and require TDR as a mode of knowledge coproduction, particularly in a development context. • Inter- and transdisciplinary integration are critical processes for a project to be successful and require the allocation of adequate time and monetary resources. • Longer-term projects with a funded preparatory research phase constitute a structural model for TDR as project outcomes can evolve over time. • Global South researchers carry a hidden burden in international collaborations that has to be adequately acknowledged upfront in project planning and final products.