Next Article in Journal
Simulating the Impact of Economic and Environmental Strategies on Future Urban Growth Scenarios in Ningbo, China
Previous Article in Journal
Municipal Solid Waste Characterization According to Different Income Levels: A Case Study
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Sustainability 2016, 8(10), 1043; doi:10.3390/su8101043

Critical Review of the Millennium Project in Nepal

1
Department of Social Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA
2
School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Ingo Eilks
Received: 8 August 2016 / Revised: 8 October 2016 / Accepted: 13 October 2016 / Published: 18 October 2016
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [1168 KB, uploaded 18 October 2016]   |  

Abstract

“Our Common Future” harmonized development policies around a new sustainable development (SD) paradigm, and experts also emphasize the importance of a democratic and equitable approach to define and achieve sustainable development. However, SD targets and indicators are often defined by a suite of experts or a few stakeholder groups, far removed from on-the-ground conditions. The most common expert-led development framework, the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), promoted one set of targets and indicators for all developing countries. While progress towards these targets was routinely reported at the national scale, these targets may not reflect context-specific sustainable development. We evaluated the relevance and comprehensiveness of MDG 7 (environmental sustainability) for Nepal. Although Nepal has met most of the MDG 7 (e.g., forest cover, protected areas coverage, water and sanitation), on closer inspection these indicators do not provide adequate context for ensuring that these targets provide the intended levels of development. Simple forest cover and protected area indicators belie the dearth of ecological conservation on the ground, and water and sanitation indicators do not reflect the inequality of access based on poverty and regions. While the Millennium Development Goals align with broad sustainability concerns in Nepal, these indicators do not reveal its true development conditions. View Full-Text
Keywords: sustainability assessment; Nepal; Millennium Development Goals; indicators; deforestation; water supply; sanitation; sustainable development; energy efficiency; carbon emissions sustainability assessment; Nepal; Millennium Development Goals; indicators; deforestation; water supply; sanitation; sustainable development; energy efficiency; carbon emissions
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Vaidya, A.; Mayer, A.L. Critical Review of the Millennium Project in Nepal. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1043.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top