Gatt Consulting Ltd - National Statistical Service

The New Zealand Big Cities Project

Abstract:

How can local governments across the country, work together to measure the wellbeing of their communities and then influence improvements in key areas?

The New Zealand Big Cities project achieved this. It involved the city councils of the largest cities of New Zealand working together to measure the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of their collective communities.

The project used indicators to measure then identify priority areas for policy improvement and planning by local and central government. A collaborative approach was required that involved gaining agreement on the purpose of measurement, an indicator framework, and indicators. It saw a collaborative approach to addressing the data gaps, and gaining community involvement, and eventually, agreement on a governance structure aimed at “providing information to decision-makers to improve the quality of life in major New

Zealand urban areas.” This paper outlines the processes used in the collaboration and to develop the framework and indicators, and the impact that this had on indicator work in New Zealand. It concludes with a brief discussion on the future of indicator projects.

1 Overview

Gatt Consulting Ltd info@gattconsulting.co.nz

www.gattconsulting.co.nz

1.1

Introduction

The New Zealand Big Cities Quality of Life project is an indicator reporting project that was established through a collaboration of local governments in 1999. It was initiated in response to growing pressures on urban communities, concern about the impacts of urbanisation and the effects of this on the wellbeing of city residents.

The initial Big Cities Quality of Life report was published in 2001 (Auckland et al., 2001).

1 The report provided for the first time in New Zealand, a collection of contemporary social, economic and environmental indicators of conditions in New Zealand’s largest urban centres. It provided the first real indication of the effects of the previous decade of public policy, and the impact of this on the wellbeing of New Zealand’s most populated communities.

The “big cities” at that time included the six New Zealand metro-cities with a population of

150,000 or over.

2 The second report, Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Eight Largest Cities

2003 (North Shore et al., 2003), built on the 2001 report. Both reports made a significant contribution to the planning and policy spheres of central and local government.

1 See: www.bigcities.govt.nz

2 The six cities were: Auckland (Pop 404,655); Christchurch (Pop 348,435); Manukau (Pop 328,980); North

Shore (Pop 205,614); Waitakere (Pop 186,444); Wellington (Pop 179,466).

Gatt Consulting Ltd: Long term planning for outcomes - Consultation and collaboration frameworks and plans

Research and evaluation - Indicator and measurement programmes

1

This paper focuses on the establishment of the initial Big Cities project. The process of developing the indicator programme, and the findings outlined in the Big Cities Quality of

Life report both played a critical role in the success of the project.

1.1.1

The beginning

As with many projects, the Big Cities Quality of Life project required a catalyst. It began when the then chief executives (CEs) of the largest cities, meeting informally to discuss common management problems, were presented with an award winning report. The report used indicators to highlight social, economic and environmental conditions in Manukau, one of the largest, most socially depressed and ethnically diverse cities in New Zealand.

The Manukau project recognised that separate social, economic and environmental indicators and reports were providing conflicting information, making them less useful for their intended purposes. For example, while economic measurement indicated good economic growth, social measurement indicated high unemployment and poverty. The work on the report linked the indicators, combined resources for monitoring purposes, and looked at the interrelationships between spheres of measurement to identify causal factors.

With knowledge of the Manukau report, the CEs recognised the need to have similarly linked information for their cities, and the joint project to identify quality of life indicators across the largest urban centres was initiated.

1.2

The task

For participants in the Big Cities project, not having previously worked together in a formal way created barriers to progress - it took almost two years before the first Quality of Life report was published. To get to that point involved five key steps which are described in this paper):

1.

Finding ways to effectively and efficiently work together.

2.

Agreeing a common purpose for measurement.

3.

Agreeing a framework and indicators.

4.

Finding ways to involve local communities.

5.

Using indicators to influence change.

2 Working together

An important aspect of the project was to develop the project infrastructure necessary to achieve collaboration at the operational, strategic and political levels.

2.1

Operational level

At the operational level was the project team. The CEs each appointed one or two personnel to participate in the team. As with all teams, each member came with different skills and experiences. For example, some were data analysts and focussed on the detail, and others were policy analysts and focussed on the big picture. While some had previously been involved in developing and reporting on social indicators, most had little or no experience of



2

sustainability indicators or trying to ensure there was a relationship between social, economic and environmental indicators. They were there “representing” their council.

Good facilitation was a key to building trust and making progress in such an environment. It ensured that the team was involved in robust discussion on the project purpose, frameworks and indicator selection; read/learned about indicators and indicator models; clarified its role and expectations, and worked according to the skill sets in the team (e.g. data specialists on the data and policy analysts on the frameworks and purpose). The collection of representatives gradually became a team of highly motivated specialists with a common purpose, and settled down to become a very functional collaboration of the big cities. The team played a key role in the success of the project.

2.2

Strategic level

However, it was the CEs that created the space to make this happen. The CEs worked at the strategic level and provided leadership for the project. For example, they “decided” the issues to be measured and the indicators to be used. These matters were also put to their councils at various points; however, it was the CEs that guided the process. The CEs subsequently sponsored the incorporation of the report findings into planning and action within their own councils, and toward policy advocacy with central government. The involvement of the CEs working at the strategic level of the project proved to be a success factor in the project's development.

The CEs also had the responsibility for bringing the politicians on board. The mayors of the six cities had not previously worked together, and yet the adoption of the project by the elected representatives of the big city councils was deemed to be an important step in ensuring that the councils used the results of measurement, and acted on the points for action identified in the report.

2.3

Political level

Keeping the politicians involved and engaged was fraught with political, administrative and logistical challenges. For example, politically, not all mayors/councils were on the same side

(e.g. left or right); administratively, each council had a different committee structure, reporting style and deadlines so putting up a report to elected members of each council in order that each received information more-or-less at the same time was difficult; then there was managing the delicate balance of input from each council so that each felt their views had been heard. Even getting mayors to a central meeting place on the same day was a logistical challenge.

Over time, as the mayors began to see the potential of the project and the trust between them increased, these challenges were overcome and were turned into positives. For example, the preparation, co-ordination and timing of reports to the various city council meetings became a necessary pre-curser to stimulating a sense of ownership of the project by the politicians and staff of the participating councils. This approach and the support of the CEs helped to gain the sponsorship and commitment of the mayors and subsequently, agreement that the project's findings form a major input to their policy programme.

Eventually, the mayors collectively stated their agenda to ‘work with each other, with



3

(central) government, and with communities to address these issues now and for the future’

(North Shore et al., 2003, p. 1).

The most critical success factor to working together was the identification of project champions. We had a champion CE who motivated other CEs to pick up the project as a priority, and a champion mayor (from a different council to the CE), who motivated other mayors. The project created recognition of the power of working together for change.

3 A common purpose for measurement

Another critical success factor was the discussion that occurred in order to agree the project purpose. There are two fundamental views about where to begin when it comes to developing an indicator programme. One view suggests that you firstly need to have something to measure, such as outcomes, goals or targets. The other is that you can measure conditions first, and then develop the outcomes, goals or targets based on findings. Whichever approach is used, the overarching purpose of the indicator programme should drive the choice and application of indicators (Reed, 2000, Gatt 2001).

The purpose of the Big Cities Quality of Life project was to:

‘advocate for quality of life and sustainable development in the largest urban centres, through applying indicators of social, environmental and economic conditions, and governance.’

This purpose statement provided the rationale for the project, what was to be measured, and the scope and focus of measurement. It created a common goal that became the “glue” for the project.

Agreeing a common purpose was a strategic decision made by the city CEs not an operational decision made by the project team. This decision became one of the most important of the project. For example, it created debates about whether we were measuring progress or sustainable development or quality of life, and what each of these meant; the types of frameworks and indicators that would be used, and how to use and report the information that the indicators would reveal. Each debate and decision became an important milestone in the project.

In the process, the CEs learned a great deal about indicators, and gained clarity on what they were trying to achieve. They were able to communicate this to their mayors and politicians in a way that would ensure buy-in and so secure the project at the highest level in each of the city councils. This was important for the future of the project.

4 Framework and indicators

A project such as this needed a framework that would help maintain clarity of direction and achieve the project purpose. A framework helps to organise sets of information to enable the identification of indicators and management of data. It provides a structure for linking the indicators to a purpose, helps to show the linkages between indicators and as a result, to manage the number of indicators. Linking the indicators to a framework also guides



4

analysis and reporting. The following section outlines the frameworks considered for the Big

Cities project and describes the methodology for selecting indicators.

4.1

Frameworks

The Big Cities project used an issue-based framework, after considering a number of others.

An issue-based framework was consistent with the purpose of the project (i.e. urban issues).

Identifying issues focussed the debate on the concerns expressed by citizens, city councillors and commentators of the day. The approach also meant that indicators were relevant to prevailing policy direction.

Several commonly used frameworks were considered. These are summarised below.

4.1.1

Goal, sector, domain, theme and issue-based frameworks

The project purpose of measuring conditions in cities indicated that a “state” indicator model would work for this project. The state indicator model includes frameworks based on goals, sectors, domains, themes, issues (etc) aimed at assessing current conditions or the state of a sector, locality, or population.

3

 A goal-based framework would see measurement against specific goals, targets or objectives. This framework was discarded as there were no common goals across the cities at that time.

 A sector-based framework would see key policy sectors (e.g. health, education) used. This was seen as not relevant to the Big Cites project as the councils involved tended not to segment their activities into these types of sectors. It was felt that this framework could also lead to “siloisation” of the findings.

 Domains and themes could be used where there is no specific priority attached to a sector, locality, or population, and so provide a set of relatively neutral headings under which indicators could be grouped. As the purpose of the Big

Cities report was to “advocate”, this framework was discarded because of the need to prioritise in order to decide the basis for advocacy.

 An issue-based framework would see indicators identified that are related to specific issues that might be unique to a sector, locality or population. This was the framework selected for the Big Cities project.

4.1.2

Capital stocks, environmental accounting, PSR/DFSR/DPSIR frameworks

Frameworks such capital stocks, environmental accounts, Pressure-State-Response (PSR),

Driving Force-State-Response (DFSR), and Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response

(DPSIR) (etc) aim to identify the interdependencies and impacts, effects or results of types activity on particular sphere – usually human activity on the natural environment.

4 These are most commonly called ecological models and were discarded for the following reasons:

3

Some examples are Quality of Life Counts (UK) which uses a goal based framework; Quality of Life in New

Zealand’s Largest Cities (NZ) uses an issue based framework; Sustainable Seattle uses a domain based framework.

4

Some examples include the OECD Pressure-State-Response framework; capital stocks frameworks as used in the report Monitoring Progress Toward a Sustainable New Zealand



5

 A capital stocks framework could see the measurement of environmental (or natural) capital, economic (or human made) capital, social capital, human capital and institutional capital.

5 This framework was discarded for the Big Cities project because it is asset-based and did not appear to support whole quality of life reporting.

 Environmental accounting frameworks aim to link economic measures such as

Gross Domestic Product (GDP), to natural resource use. This was discarded, as it tended to have less applicability for social issues.

 The PSR framework and its derivatives, while useful for assessing cause and effect, were deemed difficult to apply to social situations at that time.

4.2

The Big City issues

The issues identified as pertinent to large cities in the first report were: housing; health; education; urban environment; safety; employment and the economy; community cohesion; democracy, and demographics (e.g. income, migration, growth, age, ethnicity etc). These are largely the same in the latest report, although some have been renamed, e.g. education has become knowledge and skills, community cohesion has become social connectedness, etc – see the latest report at: http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/

4.3

Indicator methodology

The methodology used to select indicators involved a stocktake, peer consultation, a decision on a set of indicators, data collection and analysis, and reporting.

4.3.1

Stocktake

To ensure that the work built on any indicator programmes currently in place at participating councils, the first step was to carry out a stocktake of what did exist. This saw each team member researching monitoring activities and indicators at their own council.

The findings of the stocktake formed the basis of the initial indicator set.

The indictors identified through the stocktake were then grouped under the relevant issue.

This also helped to reduce duplication, highlight gaps, and identify common data sources.

The stocktake also created discussion on indicators with staff at each council and therefore, raised awareness of the project with those councils.

4.3.2

Peer consultation

The indicator set that emerged following the stocktake underwent a period of peer consultation within each council, and with the government, NGO and academic sectors. As around half of the big cities involved had identified their own indicators through community consultation, a further round of consultation with communities was deemed unnecessary at the time. Community consultation is addressed in section 5.

This round of peer consultation drew many comments, almost all positive and useful. As with the stocktake, it also raised awareness of the project, but at a New Zealand-wide level.

5 OECD (2001)



6

4.3.3

Selecting the indicator set

To reduce the number of indicators to a manageable set following consultation, indicator selection criteria were applied. These are listed below.

Indicators must:

 Meet international standards.

 Be measurable; valid; understandable; comparable; responsiveness to change; time related, and repeatable.

 Be able to be disaggregated (by geographic location, age, sex, and ethnicity).

 Enable cost effective data collection.

Applying the criteria resulted in around 60 indicators with each grouped under one of the issues previously mentioned. It is not intended to go into indicator typologies in this paper.

However, at the time, a variety was considered. For example, headline; decoupling; linking; weighted; direct; proxy; cross-cutting indicators and composite and aggregated indices.

Indicators in the final set tended to be normative and direct. Proxy indicators were used where no direct indicators could be identified. For example, in the natural environment category, where no direct indicators and comparable data were available, a checklist was used to indicate progress toward legislative, national or international standards. The project used composite and aggregated indices sparingly; the economic index of gross domestic product (GDP), and the New Zealand Deprivation Index being the main two.

6

4.3.4

Data collection

Once the indicators had been selected a data plan was developed to guide data collection.

This also helped to decide how to fill any gaps in data. Data were drawn from mainstream secondary sources and primary sources. Secondary sources were mainly Statistics New

Zealand, other government departments and the participating city councils. Primary data were collected mostly to address data gaps and were captured through a telephone survey of a representative sample of citizens in each city (various sample sizes in the initial report and 4,000 in total across all cities in the 2003 project). The survey questions focused on:

 Perceptions of own health status and quality of life.

 Perceptions of air and water pollution, and noise and graffiti as problems in the area.

 Perceptions of the look and feel of the city.

 Perceptions of safety (day and night, at home, in the street, in the town centre).

 Perceptions of the affect of increased cultural diversity in the area.

 Perceptions of neighbourhood strength and spirit.

 Participation in physical activity and sport.

 Use of public transport, and perceptions of its affordability, safety and convenience.

6

The New Zealand Deprivation Index (Crampton, et al., 2000).

(NZDep) uses data from the Census of

Population and Dwellings indexed against 9 variables to provide a score of social deprivation in New Zealand



7

 Understanding and perceptions of city council decision-making, public involvement in this, and the council’s effectiveness.

This part of the process was iterative as various indicators were dropped and other included depending on data availability. The 2003 report (North Shore et al., 2003, p. 163) cites several data issues, such as the availability, consistency and comparability of data. For example, in the environmental section (p. 102) a number of data items were not available, and some indicators lacked standardised data and measures.

While it was important not to be limited by the lack of data, these factors did influence the selection of the final indicator set, the types of quality of life issues that were analysed and produced for discussion and, as a consequence, the action that informed advocacy on policy and planning.

4.3.5

Analysis and reporting

The analysis of indicator findings is a factor that defines one indicator project from another.

For example, we might all measure unemployment levels. However, it is the context and purpose of the project that determines how the data are interpreted. The analysis for the

Big Cities project was carried out using a big city lens - in other words, it was focussed on providing information for decision-makers to advocate for quality of life and sustainable development in big cities, as per the purpose statement.

Trends over time (where data were available) were analysed, along with the relationships between indicators. For example, income levels were linked to housing affordability; unemployment to crime levels; transport use, waste generation and air pollution to environmental deterioration, and so on. The report used commentary to illustrate the linkages and the interdependencies of the indicators and issues. This method of analysis allowed points for action and policy and planning responses to be identified.

The criterion of disaggregation had a significant impact on the ability to identify points for action. Disaggregation by geographical, age, and ethnicity-specific variables allowed issues within and between cities to be highlighted. For example, disaggregation of the crime statistics enabled crime rates to be identified per city, along with the specific populations affected. This then helped to identify points for action at a city level.

5 Involving local communities

5.1

Building on current community information

Community involvement in the identification of indicators for the Big Cities project was carried out at the local level, in a local way, building on information that councils already had. For example, a series of “Sustainable Future” community workshops had been carried out in Manukau for the project that was the catalyst for the Big Cities project, and that produced indicators. In addition, several of the participating councils had undertaken community surveys to generate primary data with which to measure council performance or to gather community input on strategic plans. Community input from these processes was used to help identify indicators for the Big Cities project during the stocktake phase.



8

5.2

Consulting on plans and indicators

Recently there has been growing acceptance of the need for local government in New

Zealand to embrace the concept of community involvement in decision making. Under the

Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), councils are required to work with their communities to identify desired future community outcomes (this is called the Community Outcomes

Process (COPS)). Councils must then develop plans showing how those outcomes may be achieved (in collaboration with government and other key players) and to monitor achievement. This means that community involvement in indicator development tends to be carried out during consultation on community outcomes.

Using the COPs to also identify indicators can work well. For example, when asking communities about their desired future community outcomes, we might ask:

 What do you want the future to be like for your children and their children?

(Outcomes: e.g. to be safe).

 What are the areas that need special attention? (Priorities: e.g. community safety, crime rates).

 What would tell us that we have been successful? (Indicators: e.g. feelings of safety, less crime

Overall, combining consultation on planning for the future, with consultation on indicators means that the indicators can be developed to complement plans; communities can learn how the city is progressing toward their vision, and it can reduce the consultative burden on communities.

6 Using indicators to influence change

6.1

Establishing mechanisms for change

Having applied the indicators and prepared a report, the question then became: how do we stimulate action on the results to bring about improvements in social, economic and environmental wellbeing and governance in the largest cities of New Zealand?

A key factor in the success of the project was the governance structure that was established to act as the collective “voice” of the big cities. Actually it was an old structure revitalised.

Local Government New Zealand, the designated voice of the local government sector, was established to provide a forum for regional, rural and metropolitan council issues. However, the “Metro” sector forum had not been active for some time. Recognising that a governance structure was required, the CEs and mayors worked together to revitalise the Metro sector forum. The Metro sector forum became the platform from which the mayors advocated for the points for action outlined in the Quality of Life report/s.

Each report highlighted key areas for improvement. In the initial report, these were: waste management; air and water quality; biodiversity; alternatives to the private motor vehicle; employment skills; child safety and youth offending; immigration policy and settlement; population based health issues; transport and technology; community engagement in decision-making, and a collective approach to monitoring. The points for action were



9

prioritised as key themes and adopted by the mayors as their policy and advocacy programme in the subsequent year. These were:

 Waste management.

 Transport alternatives.

 Economic development and sustainable employment.

 Community safety.

 Joined up thinking and collaboration and across sector-across government links.

 Local authority planning.

 Strategic alliances for future surveys and data generation.

6.2

Working through others

The Quality of Life project was not designed to assess the effectiveness of specific policy initiatives, but to highlight areas that required change relative to the urban space.

Therefore, to stimulate that change the project relied on policy makers and planners at all levels of government. Had we not undertaken the stocktake of indicators across all councils, carried out peer consultation with data providers, users, commentators, and key government stakeholders, and involved the mayors and councillors, the project might have resulted in simply another indicator report. Instead, we had a large following of people who were ready to seriously consider the results. Various key points for action became key areas for action by other sectors, policy makers and planners as well as the participating councils.

6.2.1

Government planning and action

Working through other government departments and the Metro sector forum resulted in the report being launched at Parliament House by the Prime Minister, who then picked up on the key points for action. For example, she established a Ministry of Urban Affairs and the Sustainable Development Programme of Action.

The Department of Internal Affairs review of the Local Government Act resulted in incorporating indicators as part of the wider local government planning activity, and the indicators in the Big Cities Quality of Life project were proposed for use by other councils in local government best practice workshops. Government departments became more willing to work with local government, and the Ministry of Social Development and the Big Cities project currently collaborate to undertake a regular citizen perception survey to generate social data.

6.2.2

Big city planning and action

The role of the CEs in the project stimulated local planning. The CEs became engaged in the project because the project focussed on their cities and they asked and debated the hard questions. As a result, each focussed on the key points for action in the report to guide planning in their own city.

Politicians are usually focussed on the day to day events that affect their portfolios and often have to be responsive to those. However, the Big Cities project provided a platform for the mayors to work together proactively and more strategically with the government to effect change, and a forum for working together on an ongoing basis. The mayors continue



10

to use the information contained in the report for planning, and to influence and inform policy decision about urban issues and quality of life in their cities.

6.2.3

Other city planning

While the project originally aimed at identifying urban (big city) issues - or issues affecting cities with a population of 150,000 and over, the project has now expanded to include 12 cities across New Zealand. The additional cities are smaller but all are experiencing growth and change that is impacting on the people, and their environments and the economy.

Almost 56% of the total population of New Zealand resides in these cities.

7 As with the big cities, these cities also incorporate the findings into their local planning.

Overall, the project has had a ripple effect that has influenced planning and measurement processes and actions across New Zealand. The work has provided a valuable information resource that has stimulated debate and focussed planning, policies and decision making. It provided an excellent example of how councils and government can work together to deliver common outcomes. The councils involved remain committed to ensuring their cities are vibrant, exciting urban centres. All continue to take action through partnerships with government and the community sector. Continuing to work together can positively impact on the challenges raised in the report to ensure that quality of life in cities remains a priority.

7 What has been learned

The process is ongoing. However, so far we have learned more about:

 The need for commitment at the highest level.

 The value of stimulating debate about the meaning of quality of life, sustainability, and progress (i.e. to arrive at a purpose).

 The importance of having a strategic perspective that underpins a measurement programme.

 The importance of working together, sharing information and expertise between and across local government and central government.

 The power of community planning based on statistical data and indicators.

 How to use indicators to stimulate debate within and across communities, councils and nationally about quality of life and sustainability.

 The delicate balance between “leading from the top” and “bottom-up” involvement.

 Stimulating investment in research and data generation at the local and national level and working together to achieve this.

8 Influence on other indicator work

The past eight or so years have seen a significant increase in the use of indicators in New

Zealand. The Big Cities Quality of Life project has led the way in implementing an indicator

7 The current cities are: Auckland (Pop 404,655); Christchurch (Pop 348,435); Manukau (Pop 328,980); North

Shore (Pop 205,614); Waitakere (Pop 186,444); Wellington (Pop 179,466); Hamilton (Pop 129,255); Dunedin

(Pop 118,686); Tauranga (Pop 103,629); Hutt (Pop 97,710); Rodney (Pop 89,562) and Porirua (Pop 48,537)



11

programme that provided a holistic perspective and direction for improvement. Central government has also developed indicator programmes that focus on measuring whether policy has “made a difference” in the public sphere.

The following is a list of the more prominent initiatives that are currently in place to measure sustainability/sustainable development or wellbeing by central government, local and regional government and NGOs.

 Ministry of Social Development: NZ Social Report 2001 (annually to 2008);

Children and Young People: Indicators of Wellbeing in New Zealand; Positive

Ageing Indicators.

 Ministry for the Environment: OECD Environmental Performance Review

2005/06; State of the Environment Report 2007.

 Ministry for Culture and Heritage and Statistics NZ: Cultural Indicators for New

Zealand 2006.

 Ministry of Māori Affairs - Te Puni Kokiri: Measuring Māori Wellbeing 2006.

 Ministry of Economic Development and Treasury, Growth through Innovation:

Economic Development Indicators 2005.

 Statistics New Zealand: Monitoring Progress Toward a Sustainable New Zealand

2002 (2009 version about to be published).

Other indicator reports being prepared include those by NGOs:

 Sustainable Aotearoa New Zealand 8

 ANewNZ 9

9 Where to next in indicator land?

In New Zealand, as with other countries, measuring quality of life (having largely a social focus) was overtaken by initiatives to measure sustainable development (having largely an environmental focus) and these are now being overtaken by recent initiatives to measure progress, e.g. through a Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) or similar. For example, New

Zealand is now working with the OECD on the project to measure the progress of societies.

No matter which indicator approach is used, there are several areas that could be kept in mind for the future:

 Collaboration – there will be increasing levels of collaboration. Collaborative arrangements can improve effectiveness as well as efficiency. It is easier to achieve results when you are all working toward the same outcomes.

 Regionalisation - there is a body of thought that encourages a more regional approach to planning and decision-making and that will roll out to include monitoring and measurement - an extension of the working together approach.

8 Sustainable Aotearoa New Zealand (SANZ) is a network with the goal of stimulating long -term sustainability in New Zealand

9 AnewNZ is an independent, non-partisan network of motivated and concerned New Zealanders seeking a sustainable future



12

Regions can be defined as sub-state, sub-national or sub-global (e.g. the Pacific region).

 Involving and mobilising communities - because regionalisation can create armslength involvement of communities and collaboration can create top-down processes, it will be increasingly important to: o Seek the views of local communities (or the people who will be affected by the decisions or the results of monitoring and measurement). o Increase our understanding of how to work with the different ethnicities living in a neighbourhood/city/region. o Think global/act local and maximise what globalisation has to offer.

 The rapid pace of change - Because the population is aging and increasing in many places, people are moving from place to place with greater frequency, and the negative impact of people on the environment is worsening alarmingly, it will be increasingly important to: o Explore innovative and increasingly accurate ways of measuring progress or sustainability or the wellbeing of people, the environment and the planet generally. o Understand the effects of populations on the planet. o Increase our understanding of what motivates people and change.

 Data acquisition – because of the above, access to data will increasingly improve.

There will always be national data sets. However, we will also need local and unique data to reflect local activities and priorities.

 Evidence based decision-making - an increase in the requirement for hard evidence for decision-making will require constant improvements in the way things are measured, the indicators used, and data acquisition and dissemination.

 Performance expectations - in the current economic climate, citizens and customers expect public bodies to tighten their belt just as they are doing at home. They will want performance data and to feel that they are getting value for money from public bodies.

In closing…….it seems important to remember that the indicators themselves are not the success factor – the indicators are the means, or tools by which information can be brought into the public domain and for debate. “Creating successful indicators relies far more on focusing on how they are integrated into the processes of urban governance and far less on devising, designing and tweaking particular indicator sets.” (Rydin, Holman and Wolff, 2003, p.

585). The Big Cities project has put this statement into practice.

References

Auckland, Christchurch, Manukau, North Shore, Waitakere, and Wellington City Councils

(2001). Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Six Largest Cities. North Shore, New Zealand:

Auckland, Christchurch, Manukau, North Shore, Waitakere, and Wellington City Councils.



13

Crampton, P., Salmond, C., Kirkpatrick, R., Scarborough, R., and Skelly, C. (2000). Degrees of

Deprivation in New Zealand: An Atlas of Social-Economic Difference, Auckland: David

Bateman.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000). Local quality of life

counts. A handbook for a menu of local indicators of sustainable development. DETR, I&DeA,

LGA, London.

Gatt, L. (2001). Measuring Sustainable Communities Through Quality of Life Indicators,

Proceeding of the Society of Local Government Managers Conference September 2001,

Wellington, New Zealand.

Ministry for Culture and Heritage and Statistics New Zealand (2006). Cultural Indicators for

New Zealand, Statistics New Zealand and Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Wellington. See: http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/cultural-indicators-2006.htm

accessed on 16

July 2009.

Ministry for the Environment (2006). OECD Environmental Performance Review 2005/06,

Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.

Ministry for the Environment (2007). State of the Environment Report 2007, Ministry for the

Environment, Wellington. See: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/ accessed on 16 July 2009.

Ministry of Economic Development and Treasury (2005). Growth through Innovation:

Economic Development Indicators, Ministry of Economic development, Wellington.

Ministry of Māori Affairs - Te Puni Kokiri (2006). Measuring Māori Wellbeing 2006, Ministry of Maori Affairs, Wellington.

Ministry of Social Policy (2001). The Social Report 2001, Ministry of Social Policy, Wellington.

See: http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/tools/previous-reports.html

accessed on 16 July

2009.

North Shore, Waitakere, Auckland, Manukau, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, and

Dunedin City Councils (2003). Quality of Life in New Zealand's Eight Largest Cities 2003,

Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland, North Shore, Waitakere, Auckland, Manukau, Hamilton,

Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin City Councils.

OECD (2001). Sustainable Development: Critical Issues, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

Reed, P. (2000). Developing Civic Indicators and Community Accounting in Canada, Statistics

Canada and Carleton University, Ottawa.

Rydin, Y., Holman, N., Wolff, E. (2003) Local Sustainability Indicators, Local Environment 8:6 p581-89.

Statistics New Zealand (2002). Monitoring Progress Towards a Sustainable New Zealand,

Statistics New Zealand, Wellington.

Sustainable Seattle (1998). Indicators of a Sustainable Community, Sustainable Seattle, See: http://www.sustainableseattle.org/Programs/RegionalIndicators/1998IndicatorsRpt.pdf

accessed on 16 July 2009.



14



15

Gatt Consulting Ltd - National Statistical Service

Related documents

Products

Support

Gatt Consulting Ltd - National Statistical Service

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib