Can the Genuine Progress Indicator better inform sustainable regional progress?—A case study for Northeast Ohio

Abstract Cities and regions are increasingly accounting for the diverse economic, social, and environmental contributions to sustainability and quality of life. However, most commonly used socioeconomic and environmental indicators are either difficult to use in policy or fail to comprehensively reflect social well-being and environmental sustainability. This paper articulates the limitations of urban and regional indicator sets and macroeconomic measures like the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), presents an alternative indicator, the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and develops, improves and applies it for Northeast Ohio. We calculate the GPI for the State of Ohio, cities of Akron and Cleveland, and 17 Northeast Ohio counties for the years 1990–2005. We evaluate temporal and spatial GPI trends, including inter- (Ohio versus other comparable U.S. local GPI studies) and intra-regional (urban–suburban–rural) comparisons. From 1990 to 2005, we found that per capita GPI grew in 11 counties and the State of Ohio (growth ranging from 0.8% to 19.7%) but declined for six counties and the cities of Akron and Cleveland (declines ranging from 0.6% to 22%). Per capita GPI was greatest in suburban counties and lowest in urban areas, and was greater in Maryland and Vermont than Ohio. These trends are largely driven by gains in personal consumption versus other environmental, social, and economic costs. Important costs include income inequality, climate change, nonrenewable resource depletion, and consumer durables. The GPI is increasingly being estimated at local scales to complement existing urban indicators by providing a common monetary basis for measuring diverse costs and benefits. Finally, we report the effect of renewable portfolio standards and conversion of vacant lots for urban agriculture on the GPI through a series of scenario analyses at the county and city scales. These scenarios demonstrate how GPI can be used as a decision tool for local and regional development. In addition, local GPI measures offer opportunities to better engage the public and decision makers in discussions about economic, social, and environmental goals and policies.

[1]  David S. Sawicki,et al.  Neighborhood Indicators: A Review of the Literature and an Assessment of Conceptual and Methodological Issues , 1996 .

[2]  Robert B. Gibson.  Beyond The Pillars: Sustainability Assessment As A Framework For Effective Integration Of Social, Economic And Ecological Considerations In Significant Decision-Making , 2006 .

[3]  N. Marks,et al.  Measuring regional progress: regional index of sustainable economic well-being (R-ISEW) for all the English regions , 2008 .

[4]  T. Power.  For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future , 1993 .

[5]  Robert Costanza,et al.  Estimates of the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Vermont, Chittenden County and Burlington, from 1950 to 2000 , 2004 .

[6]  Xiyong Hou,et al.  Assessment of coastal zone sustainable development: A case study of Yantai, China , 2010 .

[7]  Is the Genuine Progress Indicator really genuine? Considering well-being impacts of exports and imports , 2007 .

[8]  Werner Hediger,et al.  Reconciling “weak” and “strong” sustainability , 1999 .

[9]  Philip Andrew Lawn,et al.  Comparing Victoria's Genuine Progress with that of the Rest-of-Australia , 2006 .

[10]  Robert Costanza,et al.  A summary of ISEW and GPI studies at multiple scales and new estimates for Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and the State of Maryland , 2011 .

[11]  Eric Neumayer,et al.  The ISEW -- not an Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare , 1999 .

[12]  J. Talberth,et al.  The Genuine Progress Indicator 2006 , 2007 .

[13]  J. Stiglitz,et al.  Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress , 2011 .

[14]  R. Andrew,et al.  A Genuine Progress Indicator for the Waikato Region , 2010 .

[15]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Toward National Well-Being Accounts , 2004 .

[16]  Simon Dietz,et al.  Some constructive criticisms of the index of sustainable economic welfare , 2006 .

[17]  Manfred Max-Neef,et al.  Economic growth and quality of life: a threshold hypothesis , 1995 .

[18]  Richard A. Easterlin,et al.  Feeding the Illusion of Growth and Happiness: A Reply to Hagerty and Veenhoven , 2005 .

[19]  Philip A. Lawn,et al.  Sustainable welfare in the Asia-Pacific : studies using the genuine progress indicator , 2008 .

[20]  V. Maclaren.  Urban Sustainability Reporting , 1996 .

[21]  Is measuring genuine progress at the sub-national level useful? , 2008 .

[22]  Wei Li,et al.  Case study on the use of genuine progress indicator to measure urban economic welfare in China , 2007 .

[23]  F. M. Pulselli.  The Road to Sustainability: GDP and future generations , 2008 .

[24]  Richard E. Lucas,et al.  Subjective Weil-Being: Three Decades of Progress , 2004 .

[25]  Ian Moffatt,et al.  Measuring sustainability: A time series of alternative indicators for Scotland , 1999 .

[26]  R. Ewing.  Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable? , 1997 .

[27]  Deborah D Ingram,et al.  2013 NCHS Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties. , 2014, Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research.

[28]  Rafael Ziegler,et al.  Political Perception and Ensemble of Macro Objectives and Measures: The Paradox of the Index for Sustainable Economic Welfare , 2007, Environmental Values.

[29]  M. Anielski.  The economics of happiness : building genuine wealth , 2007 .

[30]  J. Tobin,et al.  Is growth obsolete , 1973 .

[31]  Tim Jackson,et al.  Sustainable Economic Welfare in Sweden: A Pilot Index 1950-1992 , 1999 .

[32]  K. Bagstad,et al.  Opportunities and challenges in applying the Genuine Progress Indicator/Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare at local scales , 2007 .