In 2015, the United Nations launched the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – a set of 17 ambitious objectives meant to guide the global agenda on sustainable development until 2030. Framed as a universal call to action, they quickly gained traction among governments, development agencies, and cities worldwide. Of particular interest to urban planners and policymakers was SDG 11: “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.” For the first time in a global framework, cities had their own spotlight.

With 193 nations unanimously adopting the SDGs, it all seemed to be the solution to all the planet’s pending problems. But nearly a decade later, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the SDGs are ill-suited to measure, track, or meaningfully improve the quality of life in urban areas. Despite their popularity, they fall short in practice—and the reasons why they became so prominent reveal much about the seductive power of global metrics, even when they don’t quite fit the task.

Why the SDGs Captured Cities’ Imagination in the first place

The SDGs rose to prominence partly because they offered a shared language. For cities seeking global recognition, development funding, or legitimacy, aligning with the SDGs became a signal of commitment to sustainability and good governance. The branding power of the SDGs colourful icons, clear goals, and global consensus—helped turn them into a default reference point for urban development initiatives.

Additionally, the SDGs emerged in a context of growing urgency around climate change, urbanization, and inequality. Cities, particularly in the Global South, were looking for ways to frame their challenges within an internationally recognized structure. The SDGs appeared to offer just that: a ready-made set of targets and indicators to assess progress.

Development institutions and donors reinforced the trend by tying funding and reporting mechanisms to SDG-aligned outcomes. Consultants, think tanks, and international NGOs embraced the framework, further embedding it into planning documents, city strategies, and sustainability rankings. For many cities, the SDGs became not just a vision—but a way to gain access to support and be part of the global conversation.

While the success of the SDGs agenda should be welcomed, how they have been used and often abused need a critical review.

The Issues with SDG Metrics in Urban Contexts

The core problem lies in how the SDGs attempt to measure urban progress. SDG 11, for example, includes indicators such as access to public transport, air quality levels, and the proportion of urban population living in slums. While these may provide a snapshot, they are blunt instruments for capturing the complexity of urban life.

Data availability and quality are persistent issues. Many indicators rely on national-level data or infrequent census reports, which do not reflect the dynamic nature of cities. Local governments, especially in low- and middle-income countries, often lack the capacity to collect, disaggregate, or act on this data. Even when data exists, it’s rarely granular enough to reflect neighbourhood-level inequalities or the lived experiences of residents.

Moreover, the SDGs were never designed to be operational planning tools. They are political in nature—crafted through international negotiations and intended to steer high-level priorities, not to guide the day-to-day realities of urban governance. As a result, their indicators tend to prioritize what is globally comparable over what is locally meaningful.

The emphasis on quantifiable indicators also narrows the definition of quality of life. Many intangible but essential aspects—like social cohesion, cultural vibrancy, or sense of belonging—are left out. Cities are not merely systems of infrastructure or economic outputs; they are spaces of interaction, aspiration, and identity. The SDGs reduce these complex realities to checkboxes.

Global Frameworks, Local Needs

The global appeal of the SDGs masks a fundamental mismatch: the more universal the metric, the less relevant it often becomes to specific local contexts. Urban challenges are deeply shaped by history, geography, governance, and culture. A sprawling metropolis in Latin America, a dense Asian megacity, and a shrinking industrial town in Europe all experience “sustainability” in vastly different ways.

Yet the SDG framework tends to flatten these differences, favouring a standardized view of what urban progress should look like. This may work well for advocacy or fundraising—but it doesn’t help cities make better decisions. Instead, it can divert attention and resources away from more context-sensitive, locally driven approaches to urban development.

Beyond the SDGs: Rethinking Urban Measurement

As the 2030 is just around the corner, cities need more than global targets. They need flexible, adaptive frameworks that can integrate both quantitative data and qualitative insights. Emerging tools like the Quality-of-Life Index, ISO 37120 or other city-led indicator platforms offer some promise, as do participatory approaches that involve residents directly in defining what matters and Artificial Intelligence will also help to track and measure the complex nature of urban performance. But each city is different, and not everything can be compared and divided into standardized measures. Trying to reduce a city to KPIs will kill local uniqueness that makes Mumbai different from Sydney, Paris different from São Paulo or Los Angeles different from Shanghai, and it will reduce the enormous innovative potential these differences hold.

The SDGs have succeeded in putting urban issues on the global map – but they should not be mistaken for effective tools to measure or steer urban transformation. To build truly sustainable cities, we need to move beyond symbolic alignment and invest in the messy, complex, and deeply local work of understanding what makes urban life better – and for whom.

Cover image: Assembly of the Commission for the Implementation of the SDGs for Mexico. Source: wikimedia.org

Text: Markus Appenzeller