The campaign for the inclusion of a specifically urban goal within the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was challenging. Numerous divergent interests were involved, while urban areas worldwide are also extremely heterogeneous. It was essential to minimize the number of targets and indicators while still capturing critical urban dimensions relevant to human development. It was also essential to test the targets and indicators. This paper reports the findings of a unique comparative pilot project involving co-production between researchers and local authority officials in five diverse secondary and intermediate cities: Bangalore (Bengaluru), India; Cape Town, South Africa; Gothenburg, Sweden; Greater Manchester, United Kingdom; and Kisumu, Kenya. Each city faced problems in providing all the data required, and each also proposed various changes to maximize the local relevance of particular targets and indicators. This reality check provided invaluable inputs to the process of finalizing the urban SDG prior to the formal announcement of the entire SDG set by the UN Secretary-General in late September 2015.

Purpose: This paper explores the building blocks of risk governance systems that are equipped to manage systemic risk in the 21st century. Whilst approaches to risk governance have been evolving for more than a decade, recent disasters have shown that conventional risk management solutions need to be complemented with a multidimensional risk approach to govern complex risks and prevent major, often simultaneous, crises with cascading and knock-on effects on multiple, interrelated systems at scale. The paper explores which risk governance innovations will be essential to provide the enabling environment for sustainable development that is resilient to interrelated shocks and risks.Design/methodology/approach: This interdisciplinary literature review-based thought piece highlights how systemic risk is socially constructed and identifies guiding principles for systemic risk governance that could be actionable by and provide entry points for local and national governments, civil society and the private sector. particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), in a way that is relevant to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This considers preparedness, response and resilience, but more importantly prospective and corrective risk control and reduction strategies and mechanisms. Only when systemic risk is framed in a way that is relevant to the political agendas of countries will it be possible to begin a dialogue for its governance.Findings: The paper identifies opportunities at the global, national and local levels, which together draw up a viable framework for systemic risk governance that (1) embraces the governance of sustainability and resilience through a strengthened holistic governance framework for social, economic, territorial and environmental development; (2) improves managing conventional risk to ultimately manage systemic risks; (3) fosters the understanding of vulnerability and exposure to gain insight into systemic risk; (4) places a greater focus on prospective risk management; (5) manages systemic risk in local infrastructure systems, supply chains and ecosystems; (6) shifts the focus from protecting privatized gains to managing socialized risk.Originality/value: The choices and actions that societies take on the path of their development are contributing intentionally or unintentionally to the construction of systemic risks, which result in knock-on effects among interconnected social, environmental, political and economic systems. These risks are manifesting in major crises with cascading effects and a real potential to undermine the achievement of the SDGs, as COVID-19 is a stark reminder of. This paper offers the contours of a new risk governance paradigm that is able to navigate the new normal in a post-COVID world and is equipped to manage systemic risk.

Cities are central to achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, yet many remain disengaged from the process. This paper examines nine city and subnational pilot projects conducted between 2015 and 2019, to assess the role of a data-based approach to governance in improving decision-making for sustainable development. We consider to what extent a data-based approach to governance can help cities in (a) localizing the sustainable development goals (SDGs); (b) integrating national and local datasets; (c) increasing openness of data and enabling better accountability for outcomes; and (d) encouraging innovation in data gathering. We find that data is considered a useful entry point for local sustainable development conversations and employing a focus on data management is welcomed by nearly all local governments, however, few localities explicitly focus on data to improve their sustainable development outcomes. Critically, despite the excitement around big data, most cities are unable to access them due to capacity challenges, data ownership, and privacy concerns.

We contend that the representational aspects of recovery play an important but under-researched role in shaping long-term outcomes for disaster-affected populations. Ideas constructed around events, people and processes, and conveyed through discussion, texts and images, are seldom neutral and can be exclusionary in their effect. This review draws insights from literature across multiple disciplines to examine how the representation of needs, roles and approaches to recovery influences the support different social groups receive, their capacities to recover, and their rights and agency. It shows how these representations can be contested and challenged, often by disaster-affected people themselves, and calls for increased attention on how to move creatively towards more informed, inclusive and supportive recovery visions and processes.