Transcript Women’s Health in Nova Scotia

Genuine Progress Index for Atlantic Canada
Indice de progrès véritable - Atlantique
Education Measures in the
Genuine Progress Index
NZ Ministry of Education
Wellington, 23 April, 2008
About GPI Atlantic
• Non-profit, fully independent, research and
education organization founded April, 1997.
Based in Halifax; Web site: www.gpiatlantic.org
• Committed to development of Genuine Progress
Index (GPI): Measuring wellbeing & sustainable
development accurately and comprehensively
• Towards full-cost accounting: human, social,
natural, and produced capital accounts
• NS focus ->National and international activities
Origins
• 1st GPI 1995 – Redefining Progress, California
• Emerged from critique of shortcomings of GDPbased measures of progress (Kuznets warning)
• Distinguished from quality of life indicator
systems by adding economic valuation
• 1995 GPI – single $ number; Statcan critique =
starting point for NS GPI (1996) as pilot for
Canada. 12 years developmental work.
Basic question: How are we
doing? What kind of NZ are
we leaving our children...?
Current way of answering
that question:
GDP-based measures of progress inadequate and
can be dangerously misleading. e.g:
• Natural resource depletion as gain
• No distinction re what is growing (e.g.
pollution, crime [US stats], sickness, cigarettes)
• Vital social, environmental assets + value of
unpaid work, free time, health, education,
equity ignored
Why We Need New
Indicators - Policy Reasons:
 More energy use, greenhouse gas emissions,
consumption, drug use make economy grow =
not the signals we may want to communicate
 Preventive initiatives to conserve and use
energy and resources sustainably, to reduce
sickness, crime, poverty, greenhouse gas
emissions, may be blunted, or inadequately
funded
Indicators are Powerful
What we measure:
 reflect what we value as a society;
 determines what makes it onto the policy
agenda;
 influences behaviour (e.g. students)
Logic not refuted: From wilderness to
mainstream: OECD, EU, SNA, CIW
Natural
environment
Society
Economy
Measuring Wellbeing:
In the GPI…
 Health, free time, unpaid work (voluntary and
household), and education have value
 Sickness, crime, disasters, pollution are costs
 Natural resources (e.g. forests) are capital assets
 Reductions in greenhouse gas, crime, poverty,
ecological footprint are progress
 Growing equity signals progress
Beyond indicators and towards
accounting and policy shift… e.g.
• Ideal world: Neither indicators nor economic
valuation is required: Social, economic,
environmental impacts would be taken into
account in all decisions. BUT
• GDP is an accounting system, not indicator
system. While economic growth statistics
dominate, economic valuation will have most
impact on policy
• In GPI, economic valuations = add-on to
indicators based on physical measurements;
brings wholistic indicator set into policy arena
Examples of policy impacts:
• E.g. NS voluntary work worth $1.9 bill/year
• Preventable chronic disease costs NS $500m
in excess health care costs –> DHPP; costs
tobacco, obesity, inactivity –> e.g. HRM
planning process; smoke-free legislation
• Full CBAs – e.g. Solid Waste; Halifax Harbour
cleanup; HRM transportation …. Etc.
• Impact on policy can be indirect (e.g. forests)
E.g. Full transport costs
• Internal variable (Direct costs according to how
much a person drives)
– E.g. travel time, vehicle operation
• Internal fixed (Direct costs that are not really
changed when driving habits change)
– E.g. vehicle ownership, registration/insurance, parking
• External (Costs imposed on others)
-
E.g. climate change, air pollution, congestion
• Or direct/indirect (based on subjective experience)
- E.g. subsidized parking
Per Capita and Total Estimates for Road
Passenger Transportation (C$2002)
Each cost a potential headliner
E.g. Congestion costs NS $12m/yr
• Lost time, gas, excess GHGs
• Conservative: Recurrent congestion only
(not snow, roadworks, accidents etc.), AMPM only, no freight, arterials only (no sidestreets), based on <50% posted limit, etc.
• = Small portion total costs
Average Car Costs (per vehicle-km)
Ranked by Magnitude
Aggregate Distribution of Costs for an
Average Car
Full-Cost Accounting Results
• Overall full cost of N.S. road transportation
system in 2002: $6.4 billion - $13.3 billion
• True cost is about $7,598/capita, of which
$4,562 are “invisible” costs
• Fixed and external costs account for over 2/3
of total cost
• These results indicate an inefficient,
unsustainable transportation system where
externalities conceal the full costs to society
THE NOVA SCOTIA GPI SOLID WASTE-RESOURCE ACCOUNTS
COSTS
Operating and amortized capital costs
Beveraging Container Recycling Program (net)
Used Tire Management Program (net)
Etc
Etc
Costs to increase participation
Total Costs
Cost Per Capita
$
$
$
Low
72,500,000
14,300,000
2,700,000
$
$
$
Medium
72,500,000
14,300,000
2,700,000
$
$
$
High
72,500,000
14,300,000
2,700,000
$
$
$
5,000,000
96,600,000
103
$
$
$
7,000,000
99,400,000
106
$
$
$
9,500,000
102,700,000
109
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,800,000
3,700,000
3,300,000
9,500,000
18,800,000
175,000
1,300,000
1,100,000
190,000
28,700,000
4,980,000
4,400,000
250,000
79,195,000
84
(17,400,000)
(18)
31,200,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,300,000
4,250,000
34,200,000
42,600,000
18,800,000
175,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
190,000
28,700,000
4,980,000
4,400,000
250,000
144,845,000
154
45,400,000
48
94,000,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,900,000
5,100,000
84,300,000
67,400,000
18,800,000
175,000
1,900,000
1,650,000
190,000
28,700,000
4,980,000
4,400,000
250,000
221,745,000
236
120,000,000
127
167,800,000
BENEFITS
Employment benefits (direct)
Employment benefits (indirect)
Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
Reduction in air pollutant emissions
Extended landfill life
Avoided siting costs
Avoided compensation
Export revenue
Tourism
Energy savings from recycling
RRFB diversion credits
RRFB approved programs
RRFB investment
Total benefits
Benefits per capita
Net annual cost ( ) or benefit
Annual cost ( ) or benefit per capita
Net savings compared to pre-Strategy cost
Results
• Implementation of the Solid Waste-Resource
Strategy led to an increase in operating and
amortized costs from $48.6 million
($53/capita) in the 1996-97 fiscal year to
$72.5 million ($77/capita) in the 2000-01
fiscal year.
– An increased cost of $24 million
($25/capita) for implementing the
changes = conventional accounts stop
there
Full cost Accounting Results
• The new NS solid waste-resource system in
2000-01 produced net savings of at least
$31.2 million, when compared to the old
1996-97 solid waste-resource system
• This translates into savings of $33 for each
Nova Scotian, versus a cost of $25 as
suggested when comparing strictly the
operating and amortized capital costs of the
two systems
Benefits
• Total benefits of 2000-01 system range from $79
million to $221 million =$84-$236 pp, incl:
– $3.3 - $84.3 million in GHG emission
reductions;
– $9 - $67 million in air pollutant reductions
– $18.8 million in extended landfill life
– $28.6 million in energy savings from recycling
– $6.5 - $8.9 million in employment benefits
– $1.2 - $1.9 million in avoided liability costs
– $1.1 - $1.7 million in export revenue of goods
and services
– $187,000 in additional tourism
Energy savings per tonne of waste
recycled
Material
Energy savings
Paper
8.5 million Btu
Plastic
20.1 million Btu
Glass
2.4 million Btu
Steel Cans
18.4 million Btu
Aluminium Cans
166.9 million Btu
Costs
• Total costs of 2000-01 solid waste-resource system
were $96.6-102.7 million:
– $72.4 m. in operating and amortized capital costs
– $14.3 m. for beverage container recycling prog.
– $2.7 million for used tire management program
– $1.6 million in RRFB operating and admin costs
– $5 - $9.5 million to increase participation
– $220,000 - $1.8 million in nuisance costs
Conclusions
1995 NS Solid Waste-Resource Strategy has
led to a considerable net benefit, both in
monetary and non-monetary terms:
1) The solid waste-resource system in
2000-01, despite increased operating
and amortized capital costs, provided a
net savings of between $31 million and
$167.7 million compared to the
operating and amortized capital costs of
the old system
Conclusions
2) Nova Scotia is a leader both
internationally and nationally in solid
waste diversion.
3) The accessibility, comprehensiveness,
and levels of waste being composted and
recycled have all improved since the
introduction of the Solid Waste-Resource
Strategy.
This is Genuine Progress
– Access to curbside recycling in Nova
Scotia jumped from less than 5% in
1989 to 99% today
– 76% of residents now have access to
curbside organics pickup
– Both are by far the highest rates in
the country
The Genuine Progress Index 85 detailed reports to date:
Time Use
•
Economic Value of Unpaid Childcare
and Housework √
• Economic Value of Civic and Voluntary
Work √
• Value of Leisure Time √
• Working Time and Employment √
Nova Scotia Genuine Progress Index: Components
Natural Capital
• Soils and Agriculture (3 = √; 2 = …)
• Forests √
• Marine Environment/Fisheries √
• Water Resources / Water Quality √
• Energy √
• Air Quality √
Human Impact on the
Environment
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions √
• Sustainable Transportation √
• Ecological Footprint Analysis √
• Solid Waste √
Nova Scotia Genuine Progress Index: Components
Living Standards
• Income Distribution √
• Debt and Assets ….
• Economic Security ….
Social and Human Capital
• Population Health √
• Educational Attainment √
• Costs of Crime √
Most used education measures tell us
more about labour market conditions
than about educational attainment +
send conflicting messages.
• E.g. Alberta has lowest high school graduation
rate and second highest drop out rate in
Canada (because lucrative jobs are available),
but the highest standardized test results (partly
because higher performers remain in school).
• Atlantic Canada has the lowest drop out rates,
the highest graduation rates, yet scores the
lowest on standardized test results.
Explaining the Difference
• 2003 CMEC data: Alberta graduation rate =
10% below Nova Scotia. Difference between
Nova Scotia and Alberta PISA scores = just
under 10%.
• Dr. Michael Corbett (Acadia Educ.): “By having
a more exclusive high school system Alberta
adjusts underperforming students out of the
school door and into the workforce. As it
happens Alberta has an economy that can
absorb a considerable amount of educational
underachievement. Here in Nova Scotia we
don't have that luxury.”
Standardized tests -- what do
they measure?
• Not at population level + Also reflect labour market
conditions – i.e. who remains in school to be tested
• Scores often reflect and reinforce socio-economic
inequalities
• Tests focus on a few academic subject areas -- math,
science, reading/writing. Are these more important
than art, history, or social studies?
• Standardized testing pressures teachers to “teach to
the test,” at expense of other non-test subjects
• Standardized test results can be misused and
manipulated to support calls for questionable reform
Average scores in PISA math assessment
by quartile of family socioeconomic status, 15-year-olds, Canada, 2003
486
510
532
563
C a nada
485
516
532
Ne w fo undla nd &
La bra dor
565
469
496
517
541
P rince Edw ard Isla nd
479
510
529
559
No v a Scotia
483
508
523
Ne w Brunsw ick
555
Que be c
502
531
556
584
Onta rio
503
526
540
571
504
524
538
559
M a nito ba
477
Sask atche w an
521
524
506
Alberta
S ec ond quart ile
Third quar t ile
Fourt h quart ile
0
539
552
585
507
525
546
571
British C olumbia
Fir s t quart ile
556
100
200
300
400
500
Average PISA math sco res
600
700
What these quantitative “output”
measures don’t tell us – “outcomes”:
• How educated the populace is, and whether we are
getting wiser and more knowledgeable
• Whether we’re learning what we need to know to
live well and sustainably, & improve our wellbeing
• What and how we learn from non-school sources
(media, family, community etc.)
• Anything about the quality of education, and the
quality of information in the learning environment
….Etc.
So What is an “Educated
Populace”?
• An “Educated Populace” has the knowledge and
skills required to foster wellbeing in individuals
and in the population as a whole
—that is to live full and healthy lives, have decent
jobs, participate actively in their communities
as citizens, and understand the
interdependence of the world in which they live,
without imperiling these prospects for future
generations.
Framework for indicators of an
educated populace
ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY &
SUSTAINABILITY (UNDESD)
SOCIAL OUTCOMES
(GPI Domains)
Time Use LEARNING OUTCOMES
To know
Population
Health
CONTEXT
(determinants)
POPULACE
Wisdom and
Values
To do
Natural Capital
Living
Standards
To be
Human Impact
on the
Environment
To live together
Social Capital
YET…Literacy flat, despite
more schooling
• “More analytical work is required to explore
the factors around the lack of overall change in
the literacy performance of Canadians.”
(Statistics Canada)
• “We urgently need to understand why our
current literacy and learning programs are not
succeeding in order to develop more effective
approaches.” (Canadian Council on Learning)
Average prose literacy scores
Canada, aged 16+, 1994 & 2003
270
Canada
272
264
Atlantic region
269
255
Quebec
266
275
Ontario
270
280
Western region
281
240
1994
2003
245
250
255
260
265
270
Average prose literacy score
275
280
285
Average document literacy scores
Canada, age 16 +, 1994 & 2003
270
Canada
271
259
Atlantic region
267
254
Q uebec
263
277
O ntario
270
277
Western region
240
1994
2003
281
245
250
255
260
265
270
Ave ra ge docume nt lite ra cy score
275
280
285
Percentile scores of correct
answers to general political
knowledge questions, by age
group, 1984, 1993, 1997, 2000
Year
1984
1993
1997
2000
18–23
39.3
36.7
37.8
31.4
24–29
43.7
46.7
41.0
36.2
Age Group
30–34
35–39
51.9
47.1
46.1
47.6
51.4
50.3
47.7
49.5
40–49
54.4
55.5
53.2
51.4
50–59
57.9
53.1
58.4
59.7
60 +
52.4
56.0
57.0
58.3
Ecological Literacy? Footprint by
Educational Attainment, Canada,
2005 (1st time)
university degree
8.67
completed secondary
education
6.96
some secondary
education
6.76
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
gl o bal h e cta re s pe r capi ta
8
9
Average debt from government
student loans at graduation,
classes of 1995 and 2000 ($2000)
1 6 ,5 6 2
Nova Sc otia
2 2 ,6 0 0
1 1 ,5 4 2
1 1 ,3 0 0
1 6 ,7 8 3
New foundland
1 2 ,6 7 0
1 3 ,2 4 5
Princ e Edw ard I sland
7 ,3 7 2
2 6 ,9 0 0
1 5 ,4 0 0
1 8 ,5 0 0
1 2 ,9 0 0
1 6 ,2 9 7
New B runs w ic k
2 1 ,4 0 0
1 1 ,2 6 7
1 2 ,3 0 0
Q uebec
1 3 ,1 2 9
1 3 ,5 0 0
8 ,6 8 1
7 ,4 0 0
1 4 ,6 6 0
O ntario
1 1 ,3 1 8
1 5 ,2 0 0
1 3 ,0 4 0
Manitoba
2 1 ,6 0 0
8 ,9 6 4
1 0 ,4 0 0
1 7 ,8 0 0
1 9 ,3 8 7
S askatc hew an
1 2 ,1 9 4
1 1 ,0 0 0
A lberta
1 6 ,2 9 3
1 7 ,9 0 0
1 0 ,5 1 1
1 0 ,8 0 0
1 6 ,6 5 6
B ritis h C olum bia
1 9 9 5 Un i v e r si ty
2 0 0 0 Un i v e r si ty
1 9 9 5 Co l l e g e
2 0 0 0 Co l l e g e
0
1 2 ,0 2 9
1 1 ,3 0 0
5 ,0 0 0
1 0 ,0 0 0
2 2 ,1 0 0
1 5 ,0 0 0
2 0 ,1 0 0
2 0 ,0 0 0
2 5 ,0 0 0
Av e ra ge g o v e rn me nt lo a n de b t a t time o f gra d ua tion
3 0 ,0 0 0
Average amount borrowed (all
sources) for 2003 degree, post-2003 degree
education or both, Maritime provinces, 2005
average student debt (all sources)
$35,000
$32,390
$30,000
$27,148
$26,199
$27,104
NS
NB
Maritimes
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
PEI
Average borrowed
Average undergraduate university
tuition fees, Canada, 1990/1991,
2005/2006, 2007/2008 ($2005)
1,900
Canada
4,214
4,382
2,519
Nova Scotia
5,694
1,744
Newfoundland
2,606
2,551
2,432
Prince Edward Island
1,173
2,180
5,062
4,625
1,669
Alberta
5,125
4,809
2,346
British Columbia
2007/2008
3,272
3,278
2,005
Saskatchewan
0
1,000
5,554
4,881
5,213
1,962
Manitoba
2005/2006
5,037
1,900
1,962
Ontario
1990/1991
4,645
4,301
2,498
New Brunswick
Quebec
6,281
2,000
3,000
4,874
4,703
4,000
Average tuition fees
5,000
6,000
7,000
Employment rate of full-time
students, 20–24 years of age,
Canada, 1976–2006
50
45
40
35
%
30
25
20
15
1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
percentage 26.6 25.5 28.5 28.5 32.1 36.2 37.9 40.4 40.1
41
40.7 40.4 43.7 44.2 46.7 46.9
Average work hours/week during
school year, full-time students,
aged 18–24, Canada, 1976–2006
18
17
usual work hours/week
16
15
14
16.1
15.8
16.4
16.7
16
15.6
15
15.2
14.8
14.6
13.9
14
15
14.7
14.6
14.1
13
12
11
10
1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Advertising in Canada’s public
elementary and secondary
schools (%), 2003/2004
HALLWAYS, UNIFORMS
CAFETERIA
North
BC
Prairies
Ontario
Quebec
Atlantic
Elementary
Secondary
French
English
Canada
19.3
18.5
13.9
8.1
16.6
11.2
32.3
9.5
16.2
14.9
11.4
1.9
3.4
2.6
1.0
8.9
2.1
8.3
2.4
3.4
3.2
BUSES
SUP P LIES
WEBSITE
OTHER
ANY
OF
ABOVE
0.0
1.4
1.9
1.0
0.8
2.2
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.3
15.9
12.2
10.3
12.2
7.9
11.1
11.6
12.5
8.8
11.6
11.1
0.0
1.1
1.5
0.8
1.2
2.2
1.2
1.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
15.9
14.2
15.1
10.1
8.3
11.1
9.5
23.6
8.8
12.3
11.6
38.6
37.0
37.9
31.0
21.4
34.6
28.1
54.8
23.5
34.3
32.3
Public versus private share of
sponsored research at Canadian
universities, 1972–2005
83.3 83.7
81.8
79.7
80
77.2
80.4 81.4 79.8
77.5 76.4
71.9
70
69.4 69.1
67.8
69.8
73.6 72.4
64.2
60
50
40
35.8
28.1
30
20
16.7 16.2
18.1
20.3
22.8
19.6 18.6
20.2
32.2
30.6 30.9
30.2
22.5 23.6
26.4 27.6
Survey year
Total public share
Total private share
20
05
20
04
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
19
80
19
78
19
76
19
74
10
19
72
Percentage of sponsored research
90
Where to from Here? What’s
Next? Key Messages:
1. We have not answered the question: How
educated are Nova Scotians?
2. Conventional output indicators can’t do so
3. Development of new indicators, data sources,
measurement methods is needed – a
‘paradigm shift’ (NS Education Dept.)
4. See Report Appendix: Comprehensive list of
“ideal” indicators (+ full literature review and
detailed report on potential indicators –
3000pp – to be released fall, 2008)
The Good News
• 3 years GPI research uncovered good models,
measures of science literacy, health literacy,
media literacy, civic literacy, ecological literacy,
wisdom scales, informal learning, ETC. –
Available in other places, not yet Canada
• -> Canadian Knowledge Survey (11+
literacies)
• Good education indicators = glue, binding factor,
connective tissue between all GPI components –
link learning outcomes to social outcomes – e.g.
health, civic, ecological literacy, etc.
Next Steps: - (A) Complete
detailed, separate components
• Released ’08: Education, HRM transportation
+ Complete last 3 components by June ‘08
• 90+ detailed reports = Most complete data set
available to any jurisdiction in North America
to measure wellbeing and sustainable dev’t
• Statcan advice – bottom up, methodological,
data integrity. Withstand expert scrutiny.
Transparency, references.
Next steps – (B) Integration
Now -> policy utility, integration, update:
1. Headline indicators – community (May 08)
2. Database – easily updatable, replicable
(Jul.08)
3. Headline indicators – provincial (Sept. 08)
•
Oct. 08: Major release – Formal presentation
to Premier, Government, and People of NS =
Landmark moment in evolution of GPI
Therefore communication:
Must speak effectively to 3 audiences:
• Experts (credibility as basis)
• Policy audience
• General public (use of media)
- Infiltration over time vs one big release:
Water against a rock (others including govt.
cite GPI #s as own; radio talk shows)
Different GPIs: Shared
principles, objectives, strategy
• Shared critique of GDP-based measures
• Shared understanding of inter-related nature
of reality, and need to integrate social,
environmental, and economic measures in a
comprehensive system
• Shared strategy of using economic valuations
(conversation with Redefining Progress)
Different GPI Methods, Approaches
• Monetization of all variables vs view that many
measures not amenable to monetization (->
comprehensiveness)
• Aggregation or not (-> communication,
‘doorway’, weighting, and policy utility)
• Top-down framework vs bottom-up (eg: by
component, forest example, educ. framework)
Different GPI Methods,
Approaches
• Start with ‘personal consumption’ + add
household work? (-> challenge growth
paradigm? a ‘green’ GDP? replace GDP?)
• Range of technical issues (stocks vs flows,
etc.)
• Communication: All at once vs infiltration
Politics and Uptake:
Measuring progress is normative
But GPI based on consensus values
• Economic and livelihood security
• Health, free time
• Educational attainment
• Strong and safe communities
• Clean environment, healthy natural resources
Political implications
• Non-partisan; Evidence-based decision making
• Good news (e.g. waste, air quality, seniors,
employment); Bad news (e.g. GHGs, old
forests); Improvements (e.g. income dist.)
• Consensus on goals, vision. Politics is about
how to get there. E.g. GHG reductions, poverty
reduction – goal vs strategy
• Comparisons: NS, Canada, Provinces, Int’l
Positive Approach: Can we do it?
Percentage Waste Diversion in Nova Scotia
60
% Diversion
50
40
30
20
10
0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Challenges to Policy Adoption
• Long-term vs short-term – returns on health
promotion policy = 25-30 years from now
• Cost “savings” hard to demonstrate without
paradigm shift away from prolonging life,
address “dying well” (Bhutan)
• Science as ‘certainty’ vs precautionary
principle; Materialism / consumption
addiction vs ‘contentment’, ‘enough’.
But time is right – E.g. NS Gov’t
commitments 2006-08:
• “Demonstrate international leadership by
having one of the cleanest and most
sustainable environments in the world by the
year 2020” (Bill 146: Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act
• “Becoming the “best place to live” means
scoring well on quality of life indicators like
those produced by Genuine Progress Index
Atlantic” (Opportunities for Sustainable Prosperity. 2006)
• Power of Green Conference, 2007 (Ec. Dev’t)
Maintain and update GPI
• Strongly recommend period of study,
reflection, consultation
• Took nearly 12 years to get here, another year
to investigate application appropriate – e.g.
interdepartmental task force
• Understand methods and data sources, select
appropriate indicators
• NS Govt will report GPI results (Community
Counts)
Data considerations
• New database key to easy updating,
comparison, replication
• Data sources – (a) official/available – mostly
Statcan; (b) provincial – e.g. forest inventories,
waste diversion -> development; (c) new
surveys (e.g. education); (d) local data
(Community GPI)
• Time, money, resources depend on indicator
selection. But cf resources required for GDP:
How often is that needed?
Data challenges
A. National vs local / community
B. Conceptual inadequacies (indicator choices)
1. E.g. education: We could not answer the
question: How educated are Nova Scotians?
2. Conventional output indicators can’t do so
3. Development of new indicators, data
sources, measurement methods is needed –
multiple literacies
4. Comprehensive list of “ideal” indicators
Conclusion
• GPI key tool to achieve sustainability, health
promotion targets, because it measures
progress in way that joins social, health,
economic & environmental objectives, and
accounts for true benefits and costs
• Measuring progress towards objectives is an
essential mark of genuine commitment to
those goals and objectives
• NZ has potential to become genuine model
GPI: Measuring what we
value to leave a wiser NZ
for our children
Genuine Progress Index for Atlantic Canada
Indice de progrès véritable - Atlantique
www.gpiatlantic.org