Report: TR 2014/44
Author: Paul Killerby, Beat Huser
This report summarises the results from desktop research undertaken throughout 2013-14 as part of the development of the Waikato Progress Indicators (WPI) programme. The aim was to learn from national and international good practice to inform the development of a comprehensive assessment of economic, environmental and social wellbeing conditions and trends for the Waikato region.
Waikato Regional Council’s (WRC’s) challenge was to develop a framework to present complex issues using summary indicators. The WPI initiative to date has resulted in:
Recommendations from a ‘frameworks review’ in early 2013 were considered during the development of the WPI framework. The frameworks review resulted in recommendations on the purpose and target audience, indicators and domains, indicator selection process, reporting and presentation of results. The key recommendation of the frameworks review was to build on existing good practice programmes including the WRC environmental indicators and MARCO (monitoring and reporting community outcomes) indicator programme. Subsequent information and peer review also influenced the evolution of the WPI programme.
The frameworks review recommendations included a proposal to develop a composite overall Regional Development Index and sub-indices which could be compared between New Zealand regions (potentially internationally) and tracked over time. Initial results from experimental composite wellbeing indices for the Waikato region are presented as part of this report.
The current WPI framework, indicators and results are a work-in-progress to provide a basis for consultation, sharing of data/information and engagement with stakeholders and the community. Results and a summary of the WPI background and method used are presented in the 2014 WRC Technical Report titled Waikato Progress Indicators – Tupuranga Waikato. (Huser and Killerby, 2014).
|List of Acronyms||ii|
|1||Setting the scene||1|
|1.2||Monitoring the unobservable||3|
|1.3||Pragmatism and the avoidance of false precision||3|
|1.5||Method used for review of frameworks||4|
|1.6||A note on the semantics of indicators and indices||5|
|2||Measuring progress and wellbeing||7|
|2.1||Strategic context for wellbeing monitoring and reporting||7|
|2.2||Societal progress and its measurement||10|
|2.3||Approaches to measuring genuine progress and wellbeing||14|
|2.4||Different approaches – lessons learnt||24|
|3||Results of good-practice frameworks review||26|
|3.1||Summary of results||26|
|3.2||Purpose and target audience||27|
|3.3||Indicators and domains||28|
|3.4||Indicator selection process||30|
|4||WPI conceptual framework||37|
|5||Composite wellbeing indices||40|
|5.1||Advantages/disadvantages of composite well-being indices||40|
|5.2||Experimental composite wellbeing indices for the Waikato region||42|
|6||Peer reviewers’ feedback||57|
|7||Where to next?||60|
|Appendix A:||Bellagio Principles||67|
|Appendix B:||Review of Good-practice Frameworks||70|