Transcript GPI_for_class - University of Vermont

Measuring Genuine Progress in
State and Local Economies
Jon Erickson
Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources,
and the Environmental Program
University of Vermont
Gross Domestic Product
nt
Factor services
Goods
Household
Firms
(production
Government )G
Financial markets
al consumptio
Other countr
ies
The total value of all final goods and services
produced in an economy in a one-year period.
World GDP, 1500-1992
14000
Real World GDP (1500=100)
1992 = 11,664
12000
10000
8000
6000
1950 = 2,238
4000
1900 = 823
2000
1500 = 100
1820 = 290
Source: J.R. McNeil, Something New Under the Sun, Table 1.1.
1975
1950
1925
1875
1900
1850
1825
1800
1750
1775
1725
1700
1675
1625
1650
1600
1575
1550
1500
1525
0
World Population Since 1820
7
2000 = 6.0
Population (billion)
6
1990 = 5.3
5
4
1950 = 2.5
3
2
1900 = 1.6
1850 = 1.2
1820 = 1
1
Source: J.R. McNeil, Something New Under the Sun, Table 1.3.
2000
1980
1960
1940
1920
1900
1880
1860
1840
1820
0
Per Capita World GDP, 1500-1992
6000
1992 = 5145
1990 Dollars
5000
4000
3000
1950 = 2138
2000
1900 = 1263
1820 = 651
1500 = 565
1000
Source: J.R. McNeil, Something New Under the Sun, Table 1.2.
1975
1950
1925
1900
1875
1850
1825
1800
1775
1750
1725
1700
1675
1650
1625
1600
1575
1550
1525
1500
0
U.S. Real Gross Domestic Product, 1920–1998
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Historical Statistics of the United States,
1976; and Economic Report of the President, 1998, 1999.
Does GDP = Welfare?
The gross national product does not allow for the
health of our children, the quality of their education,
or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty
of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the
intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of
our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor
our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning;
neither our compassion nor our devotion to our
country; it measures everything in short, except that
which makes life worthwhile.
~Robert F. Kennedy, 1968
Another Measure of the 20th Century
Item
Increase
Factor
1890s-1990s
Item
Increase Factor
1890s – 1990s
World population
4
Water use
9
Urban proportion of . . .
3
Marine fish catch
35
Total world urban pop.
13
Cattle population
4
World economy
14
Pig population
9
Industrial output
40
Horse population
1.1
Energy use
16
Blue whales (S. Ocean)
0.0025
Coal production
7
Fin whale population
0.03
Air pollution
~5
Bird and mammal species
0.99
Carbon dioxide emiss.
17
Irrigated area
5
Sulfur dioxide emissions
13
Forest area
0.8
Lead emiss. to atmosph.
~8
Cropland
2
Source: J.R. McNeil, Something New Under the Sun, Table 12.1.
Top 1% Share of Household Wealth 1922-1997
44.2
36.7
36.4
35.7
34.4
33.3
31.2
29.8
31.8
31.1
30.9
37.2
38.5
40.1
31.9
29.1
27.1
24.8
19.9
20.5
1922 1929 1933 1939 1945 1949 1953 1962 1965 1969 1972 1976 1979 1981 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1997
Source: Edward Wolff, Top Heavy, 1996, New Series Households date pp. 78-79 (1992-1989), “Recent Trends in Wealth
Ownership”, 1998 (1992-1997). CF Economic Apartheid in America, Collins and Yeskel, 2000, P. 56.
1947 to 1979-Real Family Income Growth by Quintile and for top
5%
140%
120%
116%
111%
114%
100%
100%
99%
86%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Bottom 20%
Second 20%
Middle 20%
Source: Economic Apartheid in America, Collins, Yeskel, p. 42, 44.
Fourth 20%
Top 20%
Top 5%
1979-1998 Real Family Income Growth by Quintile and for Top 1%
120%
106%
100%
80%
60%
38%
40%
20%
15%
8%
3%
0%
Bottom 20%
-5%
Second 20%
Middle 20%
-20%
Source: Economic Apartheid in America, Collins, Yeskel, p. 42, 44.
Fourth 20%
Top 20%
Top 1%
Is there a better measure
of genuine economic progress?
US
UK
Indices of ISEW
140
140
90
90
40
1940
40
1940
1960
1980
2000
German y
(Index of Sustainable
Economic Welfare)
1960
1980
2000
and GDP
(1970 = 100)
Austri a
Chile
240
140
140
90
90
40
1940
40
1940
1960
1980
2000
Netherland s
140
90
90
1960
1980
140
90
1960
1980
2000
Swede n
140
40
1940
190
2000
40
1940
1960
1980
2000
40
1940
1960
1980
2000
ISEW (or GPI) by Column:
A: Personal Consumption
B: Income Distribution
C: PC adj. for Income Distr.
D: Value of Household
Labor
E: Value of Volunteer Work
F: Services of Household
Capital
G: Services of Highways
and Streets
Y: Net Capital Investment
Z: Net Foreign Lending
and Borrowing
H: Cost of Crime
I: Cost of Family Breakdown
J: Loss of Leisure Time
K: Cost of Underemployment
L: Cost of Consumer Durables
M: Cost of Commuting
N: Cost of Household Pollution Abatement
O: Cost of Automobile Accidents
P: Cost of Water Pollution
Q: Cost of Air Pollution
R: Cost of Noise Pollution
S: Loss of Wetlands
T: Loss of Farmland
U: Depletion of Nonrenewable Resources
V: Long-Term Environmental Damage
W: Cost of Ozone Depletion
X: Loss of Forest Cover
GPI Functional Groups and Authors
for this study
1. Income: (Columns A, B, C)
Alan Adams and Tyson Kerr
2. Households (Columns D, E, F, L, N)
Kendra Schmiedeskamp and Jessica Hike
3. Mobility (Columns G, M, O)
Christian Adams and Keith Montone
4. Social Capital (Columns H, I, J, K)
Walter Tusinski and Lauren Sparacino
5. Pollution (Columns P, Q, R)
Benjamin Altschuler and Stephanie Balter
6. Land loss (Columns S, T, X)
Brendan Fisher and Joseph Kelly
7. Natural Capital (Columns U, V, W)
Megan McCauley and Michael Rauch
8. Net Investment (Columns Y, Z)
Dan Saxton and Laurel Williams
Summary Results for Four Spatial Scales
GPI/capita at all four scales
20,000
18,000
Burlington
Chittenden
16,000
Vermont
US
$/capita
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
1950
1960
1970
1980
Year
1990
2000
Detail
Detailed Reports are available at:
The detailed, column by column report:
www.uvm.edu/~jdericks/GPI/GPIdetails.doc
The master spreadsheet:
www.uvm.edu/~jdericks/GPI/GPIspreadsheet.xls
Thanks to:
Burlington Legacy Project
Champlain Initiative
Dozens of local and state contacts
An Ecological Economics Capital Stock
Approach to Quality of Life Assessment in
Burlington, Vermont, USA
Joseph Kelly and Jon D. Erickson
Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources
University of Vermont
and the Fall 2003 Introduction to Ecological Economics class:
C. Andrews, J. Antonucci, S. Augeri, E. Berliet, M. Birkby, W. Brennan, E. Brown,
M. Brundige, M. Buechler, M. Cohen, C. Coleman, C. Coogan, A. Cooper, K. Costello,
M. Crane, A. D'Aversa, A. Davis, J. DeCelles, A. Delgado, M. DiBiccari, H. Dudley,
J. Dye, A. Effler, M. Egbers, P. Freeman, M. Gilmartin, E. Graves, M. Hall,
C. Hancock, E. Harrison, E. Hartz, K. Hayes, C. Herold-Lind, R. Holthaus, D. Hubbard,
H. Johansson, L. Junger, B. Kelly, A. Kirschner, A. Klein, M. Martin, I. Marvin,
C. McCreight, B. O'Donoghue, M. Palmer, B. Parke, A. Pearlstein, J. Randall,
C. Reeves, D. Rosa, C. Smith, J. Smith, R. Sterling, C. Sullivan, T. Van Etten, T.,
A. Verinis, P. Virchick, A. Voinov, J. Waters
Photo: Anton Voinov
Eight Neighborhoods
1 – New North End
2-1
2 – Old North End
1-1
3 – Downtown
2-2
4 – Collegetown
1-2
2-3
2-4
5 – Northeast
6 – The Hill
3-1
7 – Pine Street
3-2
8 – South End
4-1 5-1
4-3
5-2
4-2
6-2
6-1
5-3
10-1
9-1
9-2
9-3
7-1
7-2
8-1
10-2
11-2
8-2
11-1
Survey Questions
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Detail
Neighborhood Identity
Built Capital
Natural Capital
Human Capital
Social Capital
Total Quality of Life
Demographics
Photo: Anton Voinov
Built Capital
How important are the things you own or rent (for
example, your home, car, furniture, clothes, etc.) to
your happiness and quality of life?
Photo: Anton Voinov
Built Capital Importance
(Burlington)
50%
46%
45%
40%
35%
30%
Mean = 2.07
Std. Dev. = 0.98
30%
25%
20%
15%
15%
10%
6%
3%
5%
0%
Very
Important
Important
Neither
Unimportant
Very
Important or
Unimportant
Unimportant
Natural Capital
How important is the quality of the natural
environment in which you live (for example, air,
water, open space, cleanliness) to your happiness
and quality of life?
Natural Capital Importance
(Burlington)
70%
63%
60%
Mean = 1.53
Std. Dev. = 0.83
50%
40%
30%
26%
20%
8%
10%
2%
2%
0%
Very
Important
Important
Neither
Unimportant
Very
Important or
Unimportant
Unimportant
Human Capital
How important are investments made in
yourself (for example, education, job skills,
health, spirituality) to your happiness and
quality of life?
Photo: Anton Voinov
Human Capital Importance (Burlington)
70%
65%
60%
Mean = 1.46
Std. Dev. = 0.77
50%
40%
28%
30%
20%
10%
5%
1%
2%
0%
Very
Important
Important
Neither
Unimportant
Very
Important or
Unimportant
Unimportant
Social Capital
How important are relationships with your family and
friends to your happiness and quality of life?
How important are interactions with people in your
neighborhood to your happiness and quality of life?
Social Capital Importance
(Family & Friends, Burlington)
90%
80%
80%
70%
Mean = 1.28
Std. Dev. = 0.70
60%
50%
40%
30%
16%
20%
10%
2%
1%
2%
0%
Very
Important
Important
Neither
Unimportant
Very
Important or
Unimportant
Unimportant
Social Capital Importance
(Neighbors, Burlington)
40%
35%
35%
34%
30%
Mean = 2.49
Std. Dev. = 1.01
25%
20%
17%
15%
11%
10%
4%
5%
0%
Very
Important
Important
Neither
Unimportant
Very
Important or
Unimportant
Unimportant
Total Quality of Life
How would you rate your overall quality of life (on a scale from
1 [very high] to 5 [very low])?
Please distribute 100 points across the following four categories
according to their importance to your overall quality of life.
Personal and public investments in your home, lifestyle,
and neighborhood
Investments and access to the natural environment in or
near your neighborhood
Your personal well-being and investments made in
yourself
Your relationship with your family, friends, and
community
Photo: Anton Voinov
Total Quality of Life Happiness
(Burlington)
47%
50%
45%
40%
35%
Mean = 1.91
Std. Dev. = 0.90
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
10%
6%
5%
2%
0%
Very Happy
Happy
Neither
Happy or
Unhappy
Unhappy
Very
Unhappy
Distribution of Importance
of Capital Stocks
Built
20%
Social
36%
Natural
18%
Human
26%
Are you happy with your current family or personal yearly income?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
No
50%
Yes
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
under 15
15-30
30-60
60-120
over 120
Percent “Yes” for Burlington = 66%
If not, how much more income per year
would you need to be satisfied?
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
under 5K
5-10K
10-25K
25-50K
50-100K
100K-1
Million
over a
Million
Overall Quality of Life (All)
Testing the Income Effect
100%
90%
Student Effect?
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
under15
15-30
Very happy or happy
30-60
60-120
over120
Neither, unhappy, or very unhappy
Overall Quality of Life (w/o Students)
Testing the Income Effect
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Without Students
21% of respondents
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
under15
15-30
Very happy or happy
30-60
60-120
over120
Neither, unhappy, or very unhappy
Neighborhood Analysis
Total Quality of Life and
Happiness with Capital Stocks
2.00
Total Quality of Life
1.50
Built Capital
Natural Capital
1.00
Human Capital
0.50
Social Capital
C
ut
h
So
St
Pi
ne
En
d
re
et
ill
H
Th
e
st
N
or
th
ea
n
To
w
ol
le
ge
nt
ow
n
ow
D
N
nd
O
ld
N
ew
N
.E
ng
to
n
rli
.E
nd
0.00
Bu
Average
Happiness Score
2.50
Burlington v. EcoVillages
Average Score
(1=not at all to 5= very greatly)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Total Quality
of Life
Built C apital
Natural
C apital
Burlington
Human
C apital
Social
C apital1
(Friends &
Family)
Intentional C ommunities
Social
C apital2
(Neighbors)
Evolving analysis and results
posted at:
www.uvm.edu/~jdericks/QOL/
Photo: Anton Voinov