Transcript THE UTAH GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR (GPI) 1990-2007

PRESENTATION TO UTAH CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, OCT. 6,
2011
Environment and Prosperity:
Examining Long-Range Planning
and Resource Limitations in the
21st Century
UTAH VITAL SIGNS
Ecological Footprint of Utah and
Utah GPI Report
Brief Overview of Research and
Implications
by Wayne Martinson, Chair
Utah Population and Environment Coalition
Oct. 6, 2011
MISSION STATEMENT FOR UPEC
We believe it is our
responsibility as citizens of
the earth to be concerned
about the environment,
sustainability, and
population. Furthermore, we
place special value on the
unique heritage and
landscape of the state of
Utah.
UTAH VITAL SIGNS
Goal:
To empower Utah citizens and key
decision-makers to make better decisions
about their future by providing clear, well
documented information about key
indicators of environmental sustainability
in Utah.
UTAH VITAL SIGNS
Taking available data and turning it into
information that people can use
Result: indicators of sustainability
Two studies have been completed
The Utah Ecological Footprint Study was
completed in Summer 2007.
The Utah Genuine Progress Indicator
Report was completed in January, 2011.
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
Resource accounting tool that compares
 Humanity’s demand (Footprint)
 Nature’s renewable supply (Biocapacity)
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
 Established standards
maintained by
international
organization
 Based upon human
demand on the Earth –
not wildlife needs
 Based on actual yields
from productive land
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
Expressed in global hectares
per person
 1 hectare (ha) =
100 meters x 100 meters =
2.47 acres =
2 football fields or 1 large soccer field
 global hectare (gha) =
hectare with world-average ability to produce
resources and absorb wastes
EARTH’S
FOOTPRINT TO BIOCAPACITY RATIO
FOOTPRINTS ACROSS THE WORLD
FOOTPRINT SCENARIOS
STUDY BOUNDARIES FOR UTAH REPORT
Geographical: State of Utah
Time: two different years
 1990
• Base year for Kyoto Protocol
• Last year of net out-migration in Utah
• Population still under 2 million
 2003
• Last year of complete data from many sources
RESULTS FOR ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF UTAH,
SANDRA MCINTYRE, PROJECT DIRECTOR AND HELEN PETERS, LEAD RESEARCHER
In 1990, Utah was living within its means
By 2003, after the growth of the 1990s, we
were in ecological overshoot:
Footprint: 9.9 gha/capita
Biocapacity: 8.9 gha/capita
Comparison 1990
global hectares (thousands)
Land types
Cropland
Footprint
Biocapacity
1,987
2,675
783
4,167
2,192
18,682
Fisheries
423
34
Built land
816
456
Pasture
Forest
Energy land
TOTAL
8,973
15,174
26,014
Comparison 2003
global hectares (thousands)
Land types
Footprint
Biocapacity
Cropland
2,447
2,663
Pasture
1,150
3,840
Forest
3,030
13,951
Fisheries
560
27
Built land
1,136
976
Energy land
TOTAL
15,526
23,849
21,457
COMPARING UTAH’S
FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY
GOING INTO “ECOLOGICAL OVERSHOOT”
SURPLUS VS. DEFICIT
DATA AVAILABILITY
Now available online:
Full report
Utah data
National and international data (as
licensed)
Calculation formulas
Charts in Excel and as GIF files
http://www.utahpop.org/vitalsigns/
IMPLICATIONS
Going into overshoot
Drawing down on nature’s capital
THE CHOICES AHEAD
Increase biocapacity
Decrease footprint
 Level of consumption
 Population
THE CHOICES AHEAD
Utah Population Projections
Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Demographic and Economic Analysis.
THE CHOICES AHEAD
Materials
Energy-efficient technologies
Buy local
Clean energy
Consume less
YOUR NEXT STEPS
Calculate your
footprint
Interactive calculator at
http://myfootprint.org
YOUR NEXT STEPS
Compare to averages – how big are your
feet?
Footprints
2003 (gha/capita)
Utah
U.S.
World
9.9
9.6
2.2
YOUR NEXT STEPS
Knowledge is power
Work together to find collective actions
and to choose a sustainable future
Use the Ecological Footprint tool to track
progress
A UTAH VITAL SIGNS PROJECT
OF
THE UTAH POPULATION & ENVIRONMENT COALITION
THE UTAH GENUINE PROGRESS
INDICATOR (GPI) 1990-2007
A Report to the People of Utah
Authors: Erica Gaddis, Ph.D. and Günseli Berik, Ph.D.
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
Utah GDP in million dollars
(2000 USD)
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
$-
“The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a
measurement of national income as defined by the GDP...
goals for ‘more’ growth should specify of what and for what”
- Simon Küznets (developed GDP)
GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR (GPI)
Alternative to GDP






Full accounting (debit side and credit side)
Monetary measure
Single number and multidimensional
Tracked over time
Compared to other states and the nation
Combined with other indicators to guide policy
Objective quality of life metric
US GPI AND GDP OVER TIME
Gross Production vs. Genuine Progress, 1950 - 2004
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
1950
1960
1970
—— GDP Per Capita
1980
1990
—— GPI Per Capita
2000
LOCAL GPI INITIATIVES
GPI COMPONENTS (ACCOUNTS)
SCOPE OF GPI STUDY FOR UTAH
Years
 1990, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2005 and 2007
Coverage
 State of Utah
 Counties: Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah,
Washington, Weber
Units
 2000 US dollars
Methods
 Modified from previous regional US studies
 Involves many assumptions and decisions
NOTES ON THE UTAH GPI STUDY
Framework




Not policy prescriptive
Transparent framework
Basis for dialogue
Open for modification and improvement
Not all issues are captured
 Water scarcity
 Nuclear waste
© Utah Population @ Environment Coalition
TRENDS IN ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL
COMPONENTS
Nonrenewable resources
Leisure time lost
Commuting
Climate change
Net services of durables
Vehicle crashes
Underemployment
Crime
Pollution abatement
Air pollution
Family breakdown
Noise pollution
Water pollution
Ozone depletion
Volunteer labor
Cropland services
Streets and highways
Net Capital Growth
Desert services
Wetland services
Forest services
Household labor
Value and Cost of GPI Components for Utah in 2007
in Millions of Dollars (2000 USD)
GPI COMPONENT RESULTS FOR 2007
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
-$5,000
-$10,000
GPI
Nonrenewable resources
Leisure time lost
Commuting
Climate change
Net services of durables
Vehicle crashes
Underemployment
Crime
Pollution abatement
Air pollution
Family breakdown
Noise pollution
Water pollution
Ozone depletion
Volunteer labor
Cropland services
Streets and highways
Net Capital Growth
Desert services
Wetland services
Forest services
Household labor
Personal consumption
Value and cost of GPI Components for Utah in 2007
in Millions of Dollars (2000 USD)
GPI IS THE SUM OF COMPONENTS INCLUDING
PERSONAL CONSUMPTION
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$-
$(10,000)
$(20,000)
$14 BILLION: HOUSEHOLD AND VOLUNTEER LABOR
Photo credit: park.on.ca
DIVORCE WENT
DOWN
Photo credit: florida-divorce-ut.org
CRIME RATE WENT DOWN
Photo credit: government-fleet.com
CRASH RATE WENT DOWN
COST OF DRIVING IN 2007: $7.9 BILLION
Photo credit: udot.utah.gov
VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN
UTAH IN 2007 WAS $25 BILLION
redit: ut.usda.gov
PRIME FARMLAND WAS LOST
Acres of prime farmland
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2007
EMISSIONS OF AIR POLLUTANTS &
COSTS OF AIR QUALITY WENT UP
Photo credit: TimeScience 2009
MORE UTAHNS BECAME UNDEREMPLOYED
POLICY AND PLANNING IMPLICATIONS FOR GPI
GPI gives snapshot of well-being
 reflective of past decisions
Provides a blueprint for moving forward
 evaluate policy trade-offs
 prioritize the use of public funds
GPI could be adopted by state
Full accounting principles of GPI could be
integrated with existing assessment tools
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The Utah Footprint Study indicates that
we need to be concerned about and
address our demand for biological
resources in Utah.
The Utah GPI report demonstrates that we
can develop other ways of measuring
success in Utah, including economic,
social and environmental factors.
These types of studies can be done at a
more localized level.
SPECIFIC EFFORTS
 Calgary, Canada develops specific footprint reduction
targets.
 Maryland State Government uses GPI as a measurement
tool for progress. Minnesota has also worked in this
area.
 Salt Lake City’s Green Guide to a Sustainable City and
Salt Lake County Green.
 Sustainability plans and efforts at universities in Utah.
 Envision Utah, Utah Quality Growth Commission and
Utah Foundation
 Other efforts in Utah? What are the results of these
efforts? And how much do these efforts work together?
© Utah Population and Environment Coalition
OVERALL DIRECTIONS FOR PLANNERS IN UTAH
The Ecological Footprint and Genuine
Progress Indicator studies are among a set
of new tools for better defining quality of
life and its relationship to the natural
environment.
Planners have increasing opportunities to
use new tools to clarify how to better
balance demands for action with the
contraints of nature, as well as economic
and social needs/values.