Search

From the local to global level, indicators and reports are produced and published to support the transition towards sustainable development. Building from two European-level science–policy workshops, this perspective essay discusses the types of risks involved with such sustainability reporting. The analysis is rooted in the framework of the UN 2030 Agenda and sustainable development goals (SDG). As a globally adopted framework, it provides an example of how risks are either recognised and framed, or non-recognised. Well recognised risks include data availability for SDGs and siloed preparation of indicators, while risks receiving less attention are ritualistic reporting lacking a critical evaluation of the limitations of the SDG framework itself. These different risks are likely to reinforce each other. A specific risk is a too narrow focus on one-way communication aiming to inform individual policy decisions. Risks related to SDGs are best managed with iterative, integrative and interactive knowledge production fostering holistic understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Nations 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) define a path towards a sustainable future, but given that uncertainty characterises the outcomes of any SDG-related actions, risks in the implementation of the Agenda need to be addressed. At the same time, most risk assessments are narrowed to sectoral approaches and do not refer to SDGs. Here, on the basis of a literature review and workshops, it is analysed how SDGs and risks relate to each other's in different communities. Then, it is formally demonstrated that, as soon as the mathematical definition of risks is broadened to embrace a more systemic perspective, acting to maintain socio-environmental systems within their sustainability domain can be done by risk minimisation. This makes Sustainable Development Goals and risks "the Yin and the Yang of the paths towards sustainability". Eventually, the usefulness of the SDG-risk nexus for both sustainability and risk management is emphasized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Media representations of the future are a key component of climate change and energy policies. This study integrates media analysis with futures studies and focuses on the media framings and representations of futures related to key national-level energy and climate strategy documents. It utilizes qualitative content analysis of online news articles of Finland's national public broadcasting company committed to high-quality journalism. The results show that a more multifaceted coverage of climate action increased during the study period of 2015–2020, especially in terms of frames and future scenario archetypes, and indicate gradually widening awareness of climate risks. However, climate change has been framed as an isolated policy area, and climate change mitigation and adaptation remain framed as subordinate to economic policy targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Insufficient physical activity is an increasing threat to personal well-being and public health. While significant research has focused on the factors that encourage or restrict physical activity, the impact of family constellations on physical activity remains under-researched despite its evident impact on leisure-time physical activity (LTPA). This study aims to analyze how being embedded in a family constellation reflects on LTPA. Our data are drawn from interviews with 89 working adults living in a household with a spouse and/or children. The results indicate that individuals have both escapist and integrative motivations for LTPA, which reflect particular family constellations. This finding leads to the following LTPA dimensions: solitary escapism, co-escapism, integrative escapism, and integration. Furthermore, the mechanism is bidirectional: family affects LTPA, and LTPA reflects on personal and family well-being. Public and private actors can utilize these findings when compiling policies and recommendations and developing services intended to increase LTPA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The pursuit of commute well-being is versatile. • Routines and critical incidents form past hedonic well-being in commuting. • Time can be both a feature and a setting of present hedonic well-being. • Past hedonic commute well-being impacts commuting behaviour. • Self-expression and meaningful relationships form eudaimonic well-being. Commute well-being is a multidimensional concept. However, existing research on commuting has focused mainly on hedonic well-being, whereas eudaimonic well-being has been given very little consideration. Furthermore, even though the time-related aspects of commute well-being have been acknowledged in conceptual studies, empirical studies have not yet explored them. The aim of this study is to understand both hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of commute well-being and how these are shaped by time-related aspects relating to the past, present and future. An exploratory qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 108 individuals representing commuters from three different working environments. Data was coded inductively, and the analysis revealed reflections on past commuting, rewards from present-day commuting and long-term justifications of commuting decisions. The study shows how issues related to eudaimonic well-being establish the long-term base of commuting behaviour and how past hedonic commute well-being impacts commuting behaviour. Acknowledging the temporal dimension is important, because inducing long-lasting behavioural changes requires an understanding of the past and present hedonic commute well-being experiences that impact commuting behaviour in the future. Eudaimonic well-being affects commuters over a longer timescale and enables them to live contently with their choices in the long term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sustainable development goals (SDGs) constitute an ambitious comprehensive global framework including monitoring mechanisms and indicators to evaluate progress towards precise targets of sustainable development. Most European countries have adapted their national sustainability indicator systems to conform to the UN Agenda 2030 for sustainable development, introducing new indicators and monitoring frameworks and governance processes in which these are embedded. What do we know about the political processes and struggles of implementing this important global framework? How does the politics of indicators differ in national contexts? We propose a classification of national indicator systems along dimensions of indicator selection, appraisal landscape, participatory nature, and political communication. We empirically explore these dimensions for four European national sustainability indicator systems through a comparative analysis based on national policy documents, indicator databases, and web portals as well as inputs from workshops and expert interviews. Given the considerable variation with respect to the trajectory of national sustainability indicator systems, we posit that these differences correspond to different national interpretations of sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2015, all 193 member states of the United Nations (UN) agreed on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The special section contains the following articles: The special section opens with a conceptual article (Eckert et al. [10]) discussing the surprising fact that the risk concept is almost absent in the SDGs, and similarly, most risks assessments are narrowed down to sectoral approaches without references to the SDGs. The agreement comprises 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specified by 169 individual targets, and a common understanding that these global goals need to be treated as being interconnected and interdependent rather than handled separately or even confined in silos (Dodds et al. [7]; UN [24]). [Extracted from the article]