Research Article: GPI Island Style: Localizing the Genuine Progress Indicator to Hawaii

Abstract

Applying the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) to an island setting offers insight into whether and how standardization of subnational GPI models can adequately capture important local conditions and inform local policy. We argue in favor of localization and against scaling down national data and transferring valuation studies to Hawaii because of the state's unique setting. To localize GPI to our context, we suggest (a) omitting some indicators that are not applicable to Hawaii; (b) expanding and discretizing the list of indicators to other important economic, environmental, and social changes; and (c) amending existing indicators to better reflect their contribution to Hawaii's welfare. This would involve (a) improving local data on economic, social, and environmental changes; (b) building new indicators through a participatory process; and (c) conducting local valuation studies that accurately reflect the social value of the changes. Environmental Practice 16: 182-193 (2014) GDP and Beyond GDP measures all goods and services that are produced by an economy within its borders during a year. While increases in GDP are generally associated with the so-called healthy growth of an economy, GDP fails to account for many other factors impacting welfare , such as unpaid labor, pollution externalities, ecosystem degradation, defensive expenditures, capital depreciation, and income inequality.Despite the inability of GDP to capture social welfare, the measure continues to play a critical role in today's policy

Charting progress towards system-scale ecosystem service valuation in islands

“…GPI uses ESV to adjust GDP for environmental changes. While not perfect for island settings and in dire need of localized valuation studies, GPI provides a framework to synthesize and report on trends across Hawaiʻi's broad sustainability goals (Ostergaard-Klem & Oleson 2014). A bill calling for the state to produce GPI was recently introduced in the state legislature.…”

Measuring what matters and guiding policy: An evaluation of the Genuine Progress Indicator

“…For example, some GPI researchers have argued in favour of localizing the GPI by incorporating locally relevant variants of components (e.g. desert ecosystems for Utah and coastal watershed ecosystems for Hawaii) (Berik and Gaddis, 2011;Ostergaard-Klem and Oleson, 2014). Such adaptations are consistent with the spirit of the GPI; however, when combined with modifications in method, the use of superior local data sources undermines the comparability of GPI studies.…”

Mesurer ce qui importe et éclairer l'action: l'indicateur de progrès véritable au banc d'essai

“…Une troisième raison du manque de normalisation tient aux adaptations locales visant à obtenir un IPV mieux adapté à la prise de décisions. Ainsi, certains chercheurs ont plaidé en faveur de versions locales de l'IPV, la variation des composantes se justifiant par des considérations locales, par exemple les écosystèmes du désert pour l'Utah et les écosystèmes côtiers pour Hawaï (Berik et Gaddis, 2011;Ostergaard-Klem et Oleson, 2014). De telles adaptations sont conformes à l'esprit de l'IPV.…”