Assessing the Wellbeing of the Central and North Coast
of British Columbia
Methodology for a regional human and ecological analysis as part of the development and
implementation of an ecosystem-based approach to natural resource management
on the Central and North Coast of British Columbia
Robert Prescott-Allen, PADATA, 627 Aquarius Road, Victoria, British Columbia, V9C 4G5
Phone: 250 474 1904
Fax: 250 474 6976
E-mail: rpa@wellbeing-of-nations.ca
As requested, this paper responds to four questions on ecological and human (“social, cultural,
economic”) analysis for an ecosystem-based approach to natural resource management in the Central
and North Coast region of BC.
The proposed method of analysis is a wellbeing assessment of the region. Before answering the four
questions, I outline here why a wellbeing assessment is proposed and aspects of the method of
particular relevance to the questions.
Why a wellbeing assessment of the Central and North Coast
Wellbeing Assessment is the method of choice because it:
1. Gives equal weight to people and the ecosystem, considering them together but measuring them
separately so that neither is submerged in the other.
2. Covers human and environmental conditions comprehensively yet cost-effectively through the
selective measurement of the main features of human and ecosystem wellbeing.
3. Provides a systematic and transparent way of identifying these features and of choosing high
quality indicators of each feature.
4. Combines the indicators into a Human Wellbeing Index, Ecosystem Wellbeing Index, and
Wellbeing Index to give a clear picture of human conditions, environmental conditions, and
sustainability of the region and areas within it (Figure 1).
5. Produces a clear picture of major human and environmental strengths and weaknesses of the
region and areas within it (Figure 2).
6. Shows the environmental price of the standard of living by generating a Wellbeing/Stress Index
(the ratio of human wellbeing to ecosystem stress).
7. Analyzes the main contributors to strengths and weaknesses, factors determining the
Wellbeing/Stress Index, and key relationships such as between resource use and wealth,
resource use and ecosystem wellbeing, and wealth and human wellbeing.
8. Can examine the most influential interactions between the region and the larger system of
which it is part.
9. Exposes major knowledge gaps, highlighting priorities for informed decision making.
10. Can be improved over subsequent iterations as knowledge gaps are filled. At the same time, by
employing a consistent set of indicators, later assessments can be compared with previous ones.
Aspects of Wellbeing Assessment of special relevance to the four questions
The structure of a wellbeing assessment
Wellbeing Assessment gives equal weight to people and the ecosystem. Human wellbeing is essential
because no rational person wants to perpetuate a low standard of living. Ecosystem wellbeing is
essential because the ecosystem supports life and makes possible any standard of living. The concept
is expressed in the metaphor of the Egg of Wellbeing (Figure 3). The ecosystem surrounds and
1
100
100
Good
h
k
Good
w
80
H
U
M
A
N
25
75
80
38
61
60
Medium
W
E
L
L
B
E
I
N
G
r
Area A
Fair
Area C
40
H
U
M
A
N
Area B
43
49
41
42
Poor
63
37
W
E
L
L
B
E
I
N
G
Area E
Area D
20
60
s
c
e
Poor
20
Bad
Bad
Poor
20
Medium
40
Fair
60
0
Good
80
100
Bad
Poor
20
ECOSYSTEM WELLBEING
Figure 1. Group Barometer of Sustainability,
showing the wellbeing of a hypothetical region and
its constituent areas. The Human Wellbeing Index
(HWI) is in the yolk of the egg; the Ecosystem
Wellbeing Index (EWI) is in the white. The Wellbeing
Index (WI) is the position of the egg—the point on the
Barometer where the HWI and EWI intersect.
Sustainability is the green square in the top right
corner. Note that the Barometer clearly shows human
and environmental conditions, their relationship to
each other, and the distance to sustainability.
Performance in different years can be plotted on the
Barometer to show the direction of change.
Medium
40
Fair
60
Good
80
100
ECOSYSTEM WELLBEING
Figure 2. Individual Barometer of Sustainability,
showing the structure of wellbeing of a hypothetical
area. Yellow circles (vertical axis) are the points on
the scale of the human dimensions (major components
of the HWI): c = community; e = equity; h = health
and population; k = knowledge; w = wealth. White
circles (horizontal axis) are the points on the scale of
the ecosystem dimensions (major components of the
EWI): a = air; l = land; r = resource use; s = species
and genes; w = water. Note that the Barometer clearly
shows the area’s strengths and weaknesses: progress
toward sustainability requires better performance on
resource use and land, and then air, water, and equity.
supports people much as the white of an egg surrounds
and supports the yolk. Just as an egg is good only if both
the yolk and white are good, so a society is well and
sustainable only if both people and the ecosystem are
well.
To compare socioeconomic and environmental
conditions—and keep the focus on improving both—the
system is divided into two subsystems: people (human
communities, economies, and artifacts); and ecosystem
(ecological communities, processes, and resources).
Interactions between the two are recorded under the
receiving subsystem. Human stresses on the ecosystem
(such as pollution and resource depletion), and benefits
to it from conservation, are recorded under ecosystem.
Benefits from the ecosystem to people (from the supply
of resources to spiritual comfort), and the human toll of
climatic and other environmental stresses, are recorded
under people.
Each subsystem is divided into five element groups or
dimensions, providing a common framework for all
assessments using the Wellbeing Assessment method
(Figure 3). The framework allows users to select their
2
w
40
Bad
0
l
Fair
Medium
Region
50
29
25
75 a
SYSTEM
people
SUBSYSTEMS
ecosystem
Health and
population
Land
Wealth
Water
Knowledge
and culture
DIMENSIONS
Air
Community
Species
and genes
Equity
Resource
use
Figure 3. The Egg of Wellbeing and the
Wellbeing Assessment structure of system,
subsystems, and dimensions (element groups).
own indicators and produce assessments that are tailored to their conditions and needs yet broadly
comparable with other wellbeing assessments. The dimensions are designed to group a wide range of
topics into a few major categories that are roughly equal in scope and easily communicable to
nonspecialists. They are specific enough to ensure that all assessments cover universally important
aspects of human and ecosystem wellbeing, yet sufficiently broad and flexible to accommodate
concerns that may matter to some societies but not all: any issue regarded as significant for wellbeing
and sustainability has a place in one of them.
The cycle of a wellbeing assessment
Because it is impossible to measure human or ecosystem wellbeing directly, assessments must select
indicators of their main features. Knowing the essential role of indicators, it is tempting to jump right
in and choose them at once. However, it is seldom clear at the start of an assessment how well a given
set of indicators represents a desirable combination of human and environmental conditions, what
aspects are left out, how much the indicators overlap, or how they relate to each other. Since indicators
require the collection and analysis of often large amounts of data, choosing the wrong ones can be a
costly mistake. Consequently, it is necessary first to take apart the concepts of human and ecosystem
wellbeing to identify the features that need to be measured—and then to unpack each feature to reveal
aspects that are both representative and measurable.
Wellbeing Assessment does this by going down the hierarchy of parts and aims in Figure 4, which
provides a series of increasingly specific stepping stones from system and goal to indicators and
performance criteria (standards of achievement). These steps ensure that the indicators are as
representative as possible of the
system as a whole and of people’s
SYSTEM
goals for themselves and their
GOAL
environment. Even so, each indicator 7. Analyze results
1. Define system
and propose
conveys information only about the
and goal
policies
particular element or subelement it
SUBSYSTEMS
represents. To provide a picture of the
SUBGOALS
entire system and of progress toward
the goal, the indicators need to be
people ecosystem
combined into indices. The steps
taken to select the indicators are
reversed to provide a logical and
2. Design
6. Combine and
framework of
transparent procedure for combining
map indicators
DIMENSIONS
elements and
them, going back up the hierarchy
and indices
(ELEMENT GROUPS)
objectives
from indicators to system. Step 1 is
OBJECTIVE GROUPS
described later in this section; and
ELEMENTS
steps 2, 3, 5, and 6 under questions 1
OBJECTIVES
and 2.
The process of a wellbeing
assessment
A wellbeing assessment is undertaken
by a technical team in consultation
with participants from communities,
governments, and interest groups
(such as environment groups and
industry) in the area being assessed. If
the main purpose of the assessment is
to inform decision making in the area,
participants should have a major say
in what is assessed and in deciding
questions of value. The assessment
SUBELEMENTS
SUBOBJECTIVES
5. Choose
performance
criteria
INDICATORS
PERFORMANCE
CRITERIA
3. Choose
indicators
4. Collect and
process data
Figure 4. Wellbeing Assessment cycle. Starting on the right
and moving clockwise, indicators are selected going down the
central hierarchy of parts (systemelementsindicators) and
aims (goalobjectivesperformance criteria) and combined
going up it.
3
must address the issues that matter to them most, although it may cover other matters as well.
Accordingly, participants:
 Define the goal.
 Have a substantial say in decisions on the elements to be covered by the assessment, objectives
for the elements, and performance criteria (standards of achievement) for the indicators.
 Have a substantial say in the findings of the assessment.
 Make their own policy proposals in light of the assessment.
The technical team facilitates the involvement of participants and undertakes all the technical work of
the assessment. Accordingly, it:
 Identifies the concerns of participants, drafts the goal, and produces an initial framework of
elements and objectives.
 Consults participants on the goal, elements, and objectives, providing them with an opportunity
to define the goal and revise the framework to ensure it includes their concerns and values.
 Reviews data sources and prepares base maps.
 Chooses indicators, in consultation with participants and specialists.
 Collects and processes data.
 Chooses performance criteria for the indicators, in consultation with specialists.
 Scores and maps indicators, combines indicators, and maps indices.
 Prepares a draft analysis of results and policy options.
 Consults participants on the analysis of results and policy options, providing them with an
opportunity to review performance criteria and combining procedures, revise the findings, and
make their own policy proposals.
 Revises the assessment in light of the consultation and prepares it for dissemination.
If the main purpose of the assessment is comparative, there is less room for local variation in the
choice of framework and indicator set. Consequently, the scope for consultation is not as great.
Defining the system and goal
The first step in a wellbeing assessment is to define the system and goal. The system consists of the
people and ecosystem of the area to be assessed—in this case the Central and North Coast region of
British Columbia. Defining it further involves deciding the units into which the region will be divided
to show the extent to which human and environmental conditions vary within it. Ideally the units
would be ecologically and socioeconomically coherent and would coincide with administrative
divisions to make the assessment more relevant for decision making and to reduce data costs by using
existing statistical areas. Since neither the ecological (ecoregional, biogeoclimatic, hydrological) nor
the socioeconomic (regional districts, First Nations’ territories, local health areas, school districts, etc.)
divisions of the Central and North Coast coincide with each other, a practical compromise would be to
divide the region into six coastal basins (Table 1). These have a degree of ecological coherence and
correspond roughly with regional district subdivisions (or, in two cases, electoral areas) and with all or
much of the territories of groups of First Nations.
Because the Central and North Coast is part of a larger system, the assessment should (as far as
possible) also measure major flows or interactions between the region and the larger system. Such
flows could include impacts on the global atmosphere, the maintenance of global biodiversity values,
the export of environmental pressure through the import of goods from outside, and the supply of raw
materials and jobs to the British Columbian economy.
Goals for the people and ecosystem of the Central and North Coast provide the basis for deciding
more specific objectives and performance criteria. The generic goal of Wellbeing Assessment is “high
levels of human and ecosystem wellbeing”. Participants could adopt this goal or define their own, as
4
long as a high level of human wellbeing and a high level of ecosystem wellbeing are central features.
What exactly these terms mean and how to measure them are defined by designing a framework of
elements and objectives and choosing a set of indicators and performance criteria.
Table 1. Suggested assessment units of the Central and North Coast region of British Columbia: coastal
basins and the First Nations and administrative units that correspond to them.
Coastal Basin
Queen Charlotte Islands
First Nations
Haida: Old Masset, Skidegate
Portland Inlet (includes Nass
River and Portland Canal)
Nisga’a: Gingolx, Gitwinksihlkw,
Laxgalt’sap, New Aiyansh
Northeast Hecate Strait (from
Dundas Island to Banks Island;
includes lower Skeena River)
Southeast Hecate Strait (from
the Estevan Group to Price
Island; includes Kitimat Arm
and Gardner Canal)
Queen Charlotte Sound (from
Milbanke Sound to Cape
Caution; includes Dean and
Burke Channels)
North Queen Charlotte and
Johnstone Straits (from Cape
Caution to Toba Inlet)
Tsimshian: Lax Kw’alaams (Port
Simpson), Metlakatla, Kitkatla, Gitga’at
(Hartley Bay)
Haisla: Kitamaat
Tsimshian (Kitasoo) and Xaixais: Klemtu
Administrative Units
Skeena–Queen Charlotte
Regional District Subdivision B
+ Masset + Port Clements
Kitimat-Stikine Regional District
Electoral Area A (southern part
of Subdivision A) + Stewart
Skeena–Queen Charlotte
Regional District Subdivision A
+ Prince Rupert + Port Edward
Kitimat-Stikine Regional District
Subdivision D + Kitimat
Heiltsuk (Waglisla), Nuxalk (Bella Coola), Central Coast Regional District
Oweekeno (Rivers Inlet)
Kwakiutl: Gwa’Sala-Nakwaxda’xw,
Da’naxda’xw First Nation, MamalilikullaQwe’Qwa’Sot’Em, Kwiakah
Musgamagw Tsawataineuk: Tsawataineuk
(Kingcome Inlet), Gwawaenuk Tribe
(Hopetown), Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwawah-mish (Simoon Sound, Gilford Island)
Mount Waddington Regional
District Subdivision A + ComoxStrathcona Regional District
Electoral Area J (part of
Subdivision A)
Question 1. Ecological analysis
“At a regional scale, what ecological analysis is required to support ecosystem-based management
and planning and the development of options/scenarios to be used by subregional and local land use
planning bodies?”
Ecological analysis for ecosystem-based management and planning and the development of options
and scenarios needs to address two questions:
How well is the ecosystem?
How are people affecting the ecosystem?
Ecosystem wellbeing is a condition in which the ecosystem maintains its diversity and quality—and
thus its capacity to support people and the rest of life—and its potential to adapt to change and provide
a wide range of choices and opportunities for the future. Diversity includes the pattern (or type, size,
and distribution) of ecological communities in the landscape and seascape; their species composition;
the size and structure of component populations; and the connections and interactions among and
within communities. Quality includes the capacity of ecological communities to maintain themselves
through cycles of growth, maturity, death, and renewal; their productivity; and the chemical and
physical integrity of soil, water, and the atmosphere.
The opposite condition to ecosystem wellbeing is ecosystem stress, in which the ecosystem loses its
diversity and quality and so becomes less able to support people and other life. Human activities are a
dominant source of stress through conversion and occupation of ecosystems, resource extraction,
translocation of species, emissions and waste disposal, and soil degradation.
5
Designing a framework of elements and objectives for ecosystem wellbeing
To ensure full coverage of the diversity and quality of the ecosystem and the main pressures on them,
Wellbeing Assessment divides ecosystem wellbeing into the five dimensions shown in Figure 3: land,
water, air, species and genes, and resource use. Assessment participants decide what components of
each dimension to measure by designing a framework of elements and objectives (step 2 in Figure 4).
Then they decide how to measure each component by choosing indicators (step 3 in Figure 4).
A well-designed framework enables people to:
 Identify the essential parts of the system.
 Avoid measuring the same part more than once.
 Avoid omitting an essential part.
 Highlight unavoidable gaps (so that everyone knows that a part is missing if there is no suitable
indicator for it).
 Ensure that an appropriate weight or value is given to each part.
 Show the logic underlying the selection of parts and the weight given to each.
 Measure key relationships between groups of parts.
 Combine the indicators to provide measurements not just of the particular parts they represent
but also of major groups of parts and of the system as a whole.
Each dimension is divided into progressively more specific components until a measurable component
or indicator can be identified (Figure 5). The components are organized hierarchically and logically.
higher levels cover
more of the system
same level covers roughly equal parts of the system
(with as little overlap as possible)
Dimension
(element group)
Land
Land
diversity
Elements
Subelements
Indicator groups
Land
quality
Conversion
Modification
Protection
Can be
measure
d
Can be
measure
d
Can be
measure
d
e.g., % of each
e.g., % of each
e.g., % of each
Indicators ecosystem type ecosystem type ecosystem type
lower levels cover
less of the system
converted to
nonforest or
plantation
in a natural or
old growth
state
in protected
areas
Forest
quality
Soil
quality
Erosion and
other
physical
deterioration
Too
broad:
split
Pollution
and
chemical or
biological
deterioration
e.g., eroded
area as % of
converted and
modified area
Figure 5. Part of a framework for ecosystem wellbeing showing the hierarchy of parts from dimension
to indicators (illustrative). Lower levels are narrower in scope and more specific than higher levels.
Indicators (measurable components) are chosen as high up the hierarchy as possible: it is not always
necessary to identify indicator groups or subelements. Gaps in coverage are highlighted by shading the part
concerned (in this example, pollution and chemical or biological deterioration).
6
Components on the same level are roughly equal in scope and overlap as little as possible. For
example, land diversity and land quality are intended to be equally important parts of land; conversion,
modification, and protection to be equally important aspects of land diversity; and forest quality and
soil quality to cover roughly equal aspects of land quality.
Lower levels are narrower in scope and more specific than higher levels. The levels also form a series
of means and ends. The level below is a means of achieving the level above. The level above is the
end or purpose of the level below. For example:
What we must measure (means): We measure ecosystem wellbeing, by measuring the condition of
the land, which we do by measuring land diversity, which we do by measuring conversion, which
we do by measuring the percentage of each ecosystem type converted to nonforest or plantation.
Why we measure it (ends): We measure the percentage of each ecosystem type converted to
nonforest or plantation to measure conversion, which we do to measure land diversity, which we
do to measure the condition of the land, which we do to measure ecosystem wellbeing.
Participants define objectives for each element and subelement to succinctly express its point, the
main item or items of concern, and the level or type of performance that is sought. The objectives
provide a logical bridge between the general goal for the system and specific performance criteria for
the indicators. An illustrative set of elements, subelements, and their objectives is shown in Table 2
(next page). Note that participants in a Central and North Coast of BC assessment might define a
different set.
Choosing indicators of ecosystem wellbeing
Since indicators cost money to measure, the ideal is to choose one high quality indicator for each
element, subelement, or indicator group (depending on how far down the hierarchy one must go to
identify a measurable component). A high quality indicator is representative, reliable, and feasible
(Figure 6).
An indicator is fully representative if it:
 Covers the most important parts of the component concerned.
 Shows trends over time and differences between places and groups of people.
For example, the indicator percentage of each ecosystem type converted to nonforest or plantation
fully represents the subelement Conversion, whereas the indicators percentage of each ecosystem type
converted to agriculture, or percentage of each ecosystem type converted to built land, or percentage
of each ecosystem type converted to
Representative
plantation do not because they represent
Covers the most important parts of the component
only one type of conversion. The indicator
concerned. Shows trends over time and
differences between places and groups of people.
percentage of forest converted is less
representative than percentage of each
ecosystem type converted because it is less
likely to show differences between one
place and another.
An indicator is likely to be reliable if it:
 Is accurate.
 Is measured in a standardized way
with sound and consistent sampling
procedures.
 Is well founded.
 Directly reflects the objective of the
element or subelement concerned.
Reliable
Directly reflects how far the objective
concerned is met. Is well founded,
accurate, and measured in a
standardized way with sound and
consistent sampling procedures.
Feasible
Depends on data
that are readily
available or
obtainable at
reasonable cost.
Figure 6. Basis for indicator selection. The ideal indicator is
representative, reliable and feasible. Indicator selection is often
a matter of balancing these qualities.
7
Table 2. Illustrative set of elements, subelements, and objectives for ecosystem dimensions.
Dimension
Element
Land
Land ecosystem
diversity
Subelement
Conversion
Modification
Protection
Land quality
Forest quality
Soil quality
Water
Inland waters
Inland aquatic
ecosystem
diversity
Inland water
quality
Water quantity
Sea
Marine
ecosystem
diversity
Marine water
quality
Air
Global atmosphere
Local air quality
Species and Plants
genes
Animals
Resource
use
Other kingdoms
Energy and
materials
Resource sectors
Objective
Conversion of native forests to nonforest or plantation
forest* is minimized.
A high proportion of each forest ecosystem type is
maintained in an old growth state or restored to that state.
Any modification of other forest areas maintains the full
range of ecosystem types in a condition and pattern that
will promote the persistence of the communities and
habitats within them.
At-risk ecosystems and large areas of each ecosystem type
are protected.
Forest productivity is maintained and logged forests fully
regenerate.
Soil degradation on modified or cultivated land is close to
degradation rates on natural land.
A high proportion of each aquatic ecosystem type is
maintained in a natural state or restored to that state. Any
modification of other water bodies maintains the full range
of ecosystem types in a condition and pattern that will
promote the persistence of the communities and habitats
within them.
Water pollutants are below levels that affect people or the
ecosystem.
The annual flow of water and seasonal and other periodic
fluctuations in flow are close to background rates.
A high proportion of each marine ecosystem type is
maintained in a natural state or restored to that state. Any
modification of other marine areas maintains the full range
of ecosystem types in a condition and pattern that will
promote the persistence of the communities and habitats
within them.
Water pollutants are below levels that affect people or the
ecosystem.
Pollutants that disrupt the chemical balance of the global
atmosphere are eliminated or substantially reduced.
Local air pollutants are below levels that affect people or
the ecosystem.
Flowering plants
Other plants
All native species and major genetic variants of key wild
Vertebrates
and domesticated species are maintained.
Invertebrates
Energy
Materials
Timber
Fisheries
Agriculture
Mining, oil, and
gas
Hunting and
gathering
Energy and materials are used efficiently and without
waste.
Resource uses are within the carrying capacity of the
ecosystem and extraction rates of renewable resources are
within the rate of renewal of the resource concerned.
* Plantation forest: forest that has been established artificially, usually consisting of stocks that are not
indigenous to the site.  Fungi, protists, and bacteria.
8
“Well founded” means that the indicator’s relationship to the component it represents is well
established, scientifically valid, or is a defensible and testable hypothesis. For example, the indicator
percentage of each ecosystem type in a natural or old growth state derives from the view that a
number of species and associations are more likely to persist if an adequate part of the ecosystem
remains in a natural state—a view that, if not established as scientifically valid, is at least a defensible
hypothesis.
An indicator directly reflects the objective of the element or subelement concerned if it measures its
actual achievement rather than factors that could advance or impede its achievement. For example, the
indicator eroded area as a percentage of converted and modified area measures the actual
achievement of part of the objective, “Soil degradation on modified or cultivated land is close to
degradation rates on natural land.” The indicator area of erosion prone land that is logged measures a
factor that could impede achievement of the objective, and the indicator area and percentage of forest
land systematically assessed for soil erosion hazard measures a factor that could advance it; but
neither measures its direct achievement, and the area and severity of erosion could change regardless
of either factor.
An indicator is feasible if it depends on data that are readily available (as maps, statistics, or both) or
obtainable at reasonable cost. “Reasonable cost” varies with the indicator. A highly representative and
reliable indicator is likely to be cost-effective even if it is expensive. Unrepresentative or unreliable
indicators are worthless, no matter how cheap.
Potential indicators fall into various quality classes depending on how well they meet the criteria of
representativeness, reliability, and feasibility. Suggestions about what to do with indicators in each
class are given in Table 3. If no indicator that adequately meets these criteria can be found, then the
component should be excluded from the assessment and its exclusion clearly noted.
A practical procedure is to:
a. Define a representative and reliable indicator for each component (element, subelement, or
indicator group). More than one indicator may be necessary if one is insufficiently
representative.
b. Review data sources to determine the availability of data for each indicator.
c. If data are not available for an indicator, identify one or more alternative indicators for which
data are available (as determined by the data review).
d. If data are not available for the alternatives and a component lacks an indicator, decide whether
to develop a program to obtain the data or to exclude the component from the assessment.
Appendix 1 presents an illustrative set of representative and reliable indicators of the ecosystem
elements and subelements in Table 2. The feasibility of these indicators for the Central and North
Coast of BC has not been determined.
Table 3. What to do with potential indicators in each of five quality classes.
Indicator quality class
What to do with the indicator
Indicator is representative, reliable, and feasible.
Use it.
Indicator is reliable and feasible but not representative. Try to find one or more additional indicators until the
component is adequately represented.
Indicator is representative and feasible but not reliable. Is it reliable enough to use if everyone is made aware
of its flaws? If yes, use it and try to find one or more
additional indicators that together could produce a
more reliable picture. If no, drop it.
Indicator is feasible but not representative or reliable. Drop it.
Indicator is representative and reliable but not feasible. Can the component be represented reasonably by
another indicator or set of indicators? If yes, drop it. If
no, reexamine the indicator’s feasibility. It may be
cost-effective after all.
9
Choosing performance criteria for ecosystem wellbeing
Given the broad scope of ecosystem wellbeing, a large number of indicators is inevitable but presents
an enormous communication problem. Every indicator sends a signal; the more indicators, the more
signals—a perplexing cacophony of good, bad, and somewhere-in-between news. The best way to
overcome this problem is to combine the indicators into indices. Assessments that do not combine
their indicators into indices are extremely hard to interpret. Assessments that do can communicate
their main findings instantly (as in Figure 1).
By itself, each indicator conveys information only about the particular component it represents, but not
about the system as a whole. When indicators are combined into indices, they provide a clear picture
of the entire system, reveal key relationships between subsystems and between major components, and
facilitate analysis of critical strengths and weaknesses (as in Figure 2). No information is lost, because
the constituent indicators and underlying data are always there to be queried.
The problem with indices is that a typical set of indicators is a mess of incompatible measurements:
pollution in milligrams per litre, ecosystem conversion in hectares, species diversity in species
numbers, genetic distance, and population change, and so on. Combining such different indicators
mixes apples and oranges. To do this successfully requires converting the measurements to a common
unit that does not distort their qualities as apples or oranges (“citrus units” would favour oranges,
“pome units” would favour apples). The common unit may be a physical unit, money, or a
performance score. Since many indicators are severely distorted when converted to a physical unit
(such as weight, area or toxicity) or money, Wellbeing Assessment uses performance scores. Several
scales for performance scores have been devised. Wellbeing Assessment uses the Barometer of
Sustainability (Figures 1 and 2), because it is the only performance scale designed to measure human
and ecosystem wellbeing together without submerging one in the other.
Performance criteria enable indicator measurements to be given a score by converting them to the
scale of the Barometer. They define the rate of exchange between the indicator and the scale—the
level of performance that is worth a given number of points (Table 4).
Table 4. The five bands of the Barometer of Sustainability. Performance criteria define the
top of each band and the base of the scale.
Band
Good
Fair
Medium
Poor
Bad
Base
Points
Range
Top
100-81
100
80-61
80
60-41
60
40-21
40
20-1
20
0
0
Definition
Desirable performance, objective fully met
Acceptable performance, objective almost or barely met
Neutral or transitional performance
Undesirable performance
Unacceptable performance
Base of scale
Performance criteria are chosen (step 5 in Figure 4) on the basis of the range of actual performance,
the objective of the element or subelement that the indicator represents, and factors such as estimated
sustainable rates, background rates, observed thresholds, standards or targets (international, national,
provincial), expert opinion, the performance criteria of related indicators, and the judgement of
participants.
The range of performance (of units within the area being assessed, or of a wider provincial, national,
or international sample) sets the base and the top of the scale. To prevent distortion of the scale,
extremes of performance may be ignored; but to ensure that the scale is realistic, the distance from the
base (0) to the top (100) must encompass at least 90% of the range of performance. In Figures 7 and 8,
for example, the scale encompasses 91% of the range of performance of 180 countries (Prescott-Allen
2001).
The objective of the element (or subelement) and the other factors help to define the bands of the
scale. In Figure 7, the objective for species diversity is “all native wild species are maintained”, which
10
implies a reduction of extinctions to background rates. The background rate of extinction is estimated
to be less than 0.01% of species per century. Based on the assumption that the percentage of species at
risk of extinction is less than 100 times the actual extinction rate—or less than 1%—the top of the fair
band has been set at 2%, meaning that performance is “good” only if the percentage of threatened
species is 1.9% or less. In Figure 8, the objective for renewable resource use is “extraction rates are
within the rate of renewal of the resource concerned”. In the case of logging, the rate of renewal is the
net annual increment (NAI) of forest available for wood supply. To meet the objective, the cut rate
must be no more than 100% of NAI. The top of the medium band has been set at 101% to ensure that
performance is “fair” if the cut rate is 100-91% of NAI; and the top of the fair band has been set at
91% to ensure that performance is “good” if the cut rate is no more than 90%. These margins allow for
fluctuations in increment and errors in estimating either the cut rate or NAI.
Threatened Plant Species as % of Total Plant Species
good
fair
medium
poor
bad
32
16
8
4
2
0
Objective: All native species are maintained.
Band Top point At risk
Basis
on scale
%
Good
100
0 Top of international range is 0.7.
Fair
80
2 Ensures that good band is well
within background rate (assumed
to be 1.0 or 100 times the
estimated background extinction
rate of 0.01% per century).
Medium
60
4
Poor
40
8
Bad
20
16
Base
0
32 Encompasses performance of
91% of countries (bottom of
international range is 47.0).
Figure 7. Performance criteria for the indicator Threatened (at risk) plant species as a percentage of total
plant species. Criteria are set by defining the performance levels that correspond to the top points of each
band and the base of the scale. The top points and base are shown in the second column on the left of the
table. The corresponding performance levels are shown in the column next to it and along the bottom of the
graphic. The basis for choosing the criteria is shown in the column on the right.
A nnual Cut as % of Net A nnual Increment (FA W S)
good
fair
medium
poor
bad
121
111106
101
91
16
Objective: Extraction rates of renewable resources are
within the rate of renewal of the resource concerned.
Band Top point Cut %
Basis
on scale of NAI
Good
100
16 Encompasses performance of
91% of countries (top of
international range is 0.0)
Fair
80
91 Ensures that good band is well
within renewable rate (cut equal
to or less than 90% of NAI)
Medium
60
101 Ensures that fair band is within
renewable rate (cut 100-91% of
NAI)
Poor
40
106
Bad
20
111
Base
0
121 Bottom of international range is
416.7.
Figure 8. Performance criteria for the indicator Annual cut as a percentage of net annual increment
(NAI) of forest available for wood supply (FAWS). Criteria are set by defining the performance levels that
correspond to the top points of each band and the base of the scale. The top points and base are shown in the
second column on the left of the table. The corresponding performance levels are shown in the column next to
it and along the bottom of the graphic. The basis for choosing the criteria is shown in the column on the right.
11
Combining indicators into an Ecosystem Wellbeing Index
Indicator measurements are given scores on the basis of the performance criteria. Once the indicators
have been given scores, they can be combined back up the hierarchy from indicator to subsystem (step
6 in Figure 4). Indicator scores are combined into a subelement score, subelement scores into an
element index, element indices into a dimension index, and dimension indices into a subsystem
index—in this case, the Ecosystem Wellbeing Index (EWI).
Components (indicators, indicator groups, subelements, or elements) are combined in one of three
ways:
Unweighted average. Used mainly when the components are judged to be roughly equal in
importance and in the quality and coverage of their indicators. Strong performance in all
components is desirable, and weak performance in any of them undesirable, but not to the extent
that bad performance in one component overrides better performance in the others. In The
Wellbeing of Nations (Prescott-Allen 2001), for example, the threatened plants and threatened
animals indicators were combined by taking the unweighted average.
Weighted average. Used to combine components that are considered to be unequal in importance
or in the quality and coverage of the indicators. The weight reflects the difference in importance or
in quality and coverage. In The Wellbeing of Nations, wild diversity was given twice the weight of
domesticated diversity because the loss of a wild species is more significant than the loss of a
livestock breed or crop variety.
Veto (lower score overrides higher score). Used mainly under two circumstances. First, when
good performance is essential in both components of a pair. Sometimes success in one component
may be at the expense of failure in the other, and the veto ensures that only success in both is
rewarded: for example, agricultural productivity and agricultural self-reliance. Sometimes the
components are halves of a whole, and good performance in one alone does not get the job done:
for example, land diversity and land quality. Second, when inferior performance in one component
outweighs superior performance (no matter how good) in all of the others. Examples are air and
water pollutants: dangerous levels of one substance are not made less dangerous by safe levels of
the others.
The EWI is the unweighted average of either four ecosystem dimensions (land, water, air, and species
and genes) or five (these four plus resource use). To prevent a high score for resource use from
offsetting a poor state of the environment, resource use is included in the EWI only when it does not
raise the index.
Question 2. Human (social/cultural/economic) analysis
“At a regional scale, what social/cultural/economic analysis is required to support ecosystem-based
management and planning and the development of options/scenarios to be used by subregional and
local land use planning bodies?”
Human analysis for ecosystem-based management and planning and the development of options and
scenarios needs to address two questions:
How well are people?
Is their wellbeing fairly shared?
Human wellbeing is a condition in which all members of society are able to determine and meet their
needs and have a large range of choices and opportunities to fulfill their potential. Essential features
include a long and healthy life, a strong economy, and an effective system of developing and
transmitting knowledge. Others are self-respect, opportunities for being creative and productive,
security against crime and violence, guaranteed human rights, and political, economic, and social
freedom.
Since health, wealth, knowledge, freedom, peace, and other goods are widely valued, it is right that
they be widely shared. The cost of achieving them should also be fairly shared. A society is not well if
12
only a few groups in it enjoy power, privilege, and high levels of the opportunities and benefits that
make up wellbeing, while others are weak, disadvantaged, and poor. Hence an assessment should
show the distribution of human wellbeing as well as its level.
Designing a framework of elements and objectives for human wellbeing
To ensure that as many as possible of the main features are covered, Wellbeing Assessment divides
human wellbeing into the five dimensions shown in Figure 3: health and population, wealth,
knowledge and culture, community, and equity. As with ecosystem wellbeing, assessment participants
decide what components of each dimension to measure by designing a framework of elements and
objectives (step 2 in Figure 4). An illustrative set of elements, subelements, and their objectives is
shown in Table 5. Note that participants in a Central and North Coast of BC assessment might define a
different set.
Table 5. Illustrative set of elements, subelements, and objectives for human dimensions.
Dimension
Element
Health and Health
population Population
Wealth
Individual and
corporate wealth
Societal wealth
Knowledge Knowledge
and culture
Culture
Community Freedom and
governance
Peace, order, and
solidarity
Equity
Gender equality
Group equity
Subelement
Objective
People enjoy long lives in good health.
Populations are stable, with a balance of age groups, and
within the bounds of human and natural resources.
Needs
Individuals and households meet their needs
Income
and obtain the income to secure their material wellbeing.
Business
Businesses are profitable and competitive.
Capital and
The society has the resources to promote enterprise and
productivity
maintain prosperity,
Inflation and
providing a stable climate for investment and decent
employment
livelihoods,
Debt
while living within its means.
State of
People have the knowledge to innovate and cope with
knowledge
change, live well and sustainably, and fulfill their potential.
Education
Education levels are high and the society has welldeveloped and widely shared systems for transmitting
knowledge formally through education
Communication and informally through communication.
Belief
Belief systems meet spiritual needs and promote human
and ecosystem wellbeing.
Spirit and nature Links between spirit and nature are strengthened and
maintained.
Expression
Creative expression flourishes.
Freedom
The rights of all members of society are fully respected,
and individuals are free to choose how decisions are made
and who should make them.
Governance
Decision-making bodies are open, clean, and effective.
Law
Communities and citizens respect the rule of law,
Crime
protect their members from crime and violence,
Peace
coexist peacefully,
Solidarity
and provide a helping hand to those who need it.
Benefits and burdens are shared equally between males
and females
and equitably among societal groups.
Choosing indicators and performance criteria of human wellbeing
Indicators and performance criteria (steps 3 and 5 in Figure 4) are chosen for human wellbeing in the
same way as for ecosystem wellbeing. Appendix 2 presents an illustrative set of representative and
reliable indicators of the human elements and subelements in Table 5. The feasibility of these
indicators for the Central and North Coast of BC has not been determined.
13
Combining indicators into a Human Wellbeing Index
As with ecosystem wellbeing, indicator measurements are given scores on the basis of the
performance criteria. Once the indicators have been given scores, they are combined back up the
hierarchy from indicator to subsystem (step 6 in Figure 4). Indicator scores are combined into a
subelement score, subelement scores into an element index, element indices into a dimension index,
and dimension indices into a subsystem index—in this case, the Human Wellbeing Index (HWI).
The HWI is the unweighted average of either four human dimensions (health and population, wealth,
knowledge and culture, and community) or five (these four plus equity). To prevent a high score for
equity from offsetting poor human conditions, equity is included in the HWI only when it does not
raise the index.
Question 3. Integrating human (social, cultural, economic) and ecological analyses
“At a regional scale, how would you approach integrating social, cultural, economic, and ecological
analyses as part of an ecosystem-based management approach to planning and decision making useful
for the development of options/scenarios to be used by subregional and local land use planning
bodies?”
Wellbeing assessments are designed to integrate human and ecological analyses. Separation of a
regional system into two equal subsystems of people (human communities, economies, and artifacts)
and ecosystem (ecological communities, processes, and resources) enables each to be measured
separately while being considered together. The separation allows interactions between people and the
ecosystem to be clearly revealed and facilitates their analysis.
Analysis starts with two integrated indices:
The Wellbeing Index (WI) is the point on the Barometer of Sustainability where the HWI and EWI
intersect. It shows graphically how close a society is to combining high levels of human and
ecosystem wellbeing and hence how close it is to sustainability (Figures 1 and 9).
The Wellbeing/Stress Index (WSI) is the ratio of human wellbeing to ecosystem stress (the
100
opposite of ecosystem wellbeing). It shows how
much development benefit a society obtains for
Good
the amount of harm it does to the environment.
81
WSI 4.26 81
80
Figure 9 portrays five societies with WSIs
WSI 1.00
30
70
ranging from a sustainable 4.26 (human
Fair
70
70 WSI 2.33
H
U
wellbeing more than four times the level of
M
ecosystem stress) to a close to sustainable 2.33 A 60
(human wellbeing more than twice the level of N Medium
W
ecosystem stress) to a close to unsustainable
E
40
L
1.00 (equal levels of human wellbeing and
L
30
70
ecosystem stress) to a highly unsustainable 0.43 B Poor
30 WSI 0.43
30 WSI 1.00
E
(human wellbeing less than half the level of
I
20
N
ecosystem stress).
G
These indices can then be broken into their major
components to identify the factors most responsible
for current performance. The Barometer of
Sustainability shows instantly what dimensions of
human and ecosystem wellbeing most need
attention (Figure 2). These dimensions can be
examined in detail to determine critical features and
their relationships with other socioeconomic and
environmental factors. Then on the basis of this
analysis, subregional and local land use planning
bodies can develop practical policy options.
14
Bad
0
Bad
Poor
20
Medium
40
Fair
60
Good
80
100
ECOSYSTEM WELLBEING
Figure 9. Barometer of Sustainability showing the
Wellbeing/Stress Index (WSI) of five imaginary
societies. The WSI is the ratio of human wellbeing to
ecosystem stress, derived by subtracting the EWI from
100 to obtain an Ecosystem Stress Index (ESI) and
then dividing the HWI by the ESI.
Underlying the Wellbeing/Stress Index are the relationships between resource use and wealth,
resource use and ecosystem wellbeing, and wealth and human wellbeing. It is obviously desirable (a)
to maximize the income obtained per unit of ecosystem stress (or minimize the ecosystem stress
imposed per unit of income) and (b) to maximize the amount of human wellbeing obtained per unit of
income. The scope and structure of a wellbeing assessment make it relatively easy to explore the
economic activities and their locations most likely to accomplish (a) and the changes in spending
policies, delivery of services, and so on, necessary for (b).
Question 4. Ensuring integration does not constrain enquiry, analysis, or scenario
development
“How would you ensure that the integration of the social/cultural/economic and ecological analyses
does not constrain enquiry, analysis, or scenario development?”
All enquiries and analyses are constrained to some extent by mental models and points of view.
Wellbeing Assessment is no exception. A conscious constraint is the equal treatment of people and the
ecosystem. The Barometer of Sustainability is designed to prevent a high score for human wellbeing
from offsetting a low score for ecosystem wellbeing, or vice versa. This accords with the view that
human and ecosystem wellbeing are equally important and sustainability requires high levels of both.
If the method were not constrained in this way, integration might understate human concerns (as in
conventional environmental analysis) or understate environmental concerns (as in conventional
development analysis and in sustainability analysis that uses the “three capital” or “three-legged stool”
model of environment–economy–society, which implicitly reduces the weight of the environment to a
third).
Because Wellbeing Assessment promotes high levels of both human and ecosystem wellbeing (rather
than one more than the other), it guards against another danger: the unconscious downplaying of either
human or environmental values that are less well documented statistically than the economy. All
human and ecosystem dimensions must be measured comprehensively. If data gaps prevent coverage
of parts of a dimension, the missing components are highlighted and their absence is taken into
account in the analysis.
Finally, because indicators of human and ecosystem wellbeing are chosen systematically and
separately—in separate frameworks of elements and objectives—they remain distinctly and
exclusively either human or ecological indicators throughout the analysis. This prevents integration
from lapsing into absorption (the confounding of socioeconomic and environmental factors), enabling
it instead to distinguish each option’s positive and negative effects on people and on the ecosystem.
Reference
Prescott-Allen, Robert. 2001. The Wellbeing of Nations: a country-by-country index of quality of life
and the environment. Island Press, Washington, DC, and International Development Research Centre,
Ottawa.
15