A recurring suggestion in the discussion about economic models was that of moving away from purely financial and growth-oriented measures of performance such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and towards measures focused on the well-being and quality of life of citizens. A number of suggestions have been made for such alternative measures, some nations (beginning with  Bhutan’s Gross national happiness index)]  have begun to adopt 'happiness indices' as guides to governmental policy, and others have commissioned studies to facilitate transition to such measures  [Stiglitz, Sen, Fitoussi 2010].  Other alternative measures being discussed are:

*   The Human development index (HDI) The HPI reflects the average years of happy life produced by a given society per unit of planetary resources consumed. It uses GDP as a part of its calculation and then factors in indicators of life expectancy and education levels.

*  The  Genuine progress indicator (GPI) or Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) - The GPI and the ISEW are based on the information supplied for GDP, adjusted for income distribution, adding the value of household and volunteer work, and subtracting crime and pollution.

*  The  Gini coefficient measures the disparity of income within a nation.

* The  Wealth estimates, a system for combining monetary wealth with intangible wealth (institutions and human capital) and environmental capital.

*  The 'Private Product Remaining' (PPR) index subtracts government spending from productive sectors, as a burden on the economy.  

*  The  European Quality of Life Survey  assessing quality of life through questions on citizen satisfaction with overall life and  different aspects of life, and attempts to calculate deficits of time, loving, being and having.

*  The Capability Approach to the Quality of Life1  Sen, A. K. (2008). "The Economics of Happiness and Capability," in Bruni, Comim and Pugno (eds.), Capability and Happiness (New York: Oxford University Press)

There was significant endorsement for these developments both in the researched material and the forum discussion. Some questions must be raised, however, especially in view of the fact that governments -- from local governments to national governments and international groups addressing the current economic crisis […] continue to press for growth as a solution to budget deficits, bursting 'bubbles' and debt;  and that alternative performance measures (to all appearances) have not been extensively discussed much less widely adopted in the private sector which is still very much focused on (quarterly) profit.

The question of how the transition to a model using the alternative measures can be achieved thus deserves much more scrutiny -- both for governments an the private sector. Currently, any government or firm adopting such policies can perceive itself as accepting at least a temporary disadvantage to competitors who continue to pursue growth, and will thus be reluctant to do so. (In the face of recent problems with the collapse of the housing and construction sector, municipalities fervently continue to try to attract new industry -- away from other locations) in the pursuit of jobs and growth.)  While this analysis and discussion still remains to run its course before definitive conclusions and recommendations can be drawn, it might be useful to look at possibilities for studying the issue in 'experimental' settings in which the transition problem is not a factor -- where alternative practices can be implemented without having to compete with and displace traditional habits.  Such possibilities might be offered by appropriate games, and by the proposal for establishing experimental 'innovation zones' in areas where existing infrastructure and systems have been destroyed by natural or man-made disasters. [>>  Innovation zones, appendix …]

 Another question is that of the nature and specificity of the proposed alternative indices. The current proposals are quite general, e.g. asking survey respondents for their perception of satisfaction or happiness with their situation and prospects. Even the indices relying on more 'hard' measurements such as longevity, child mortality, educational levels, degree of literacy, income and income distribution ('income 'gap' between rich and poor) are open to quite varying interpretation as to what might cause specific responses, shortfalls, successes -- and therefore widely different policy recommendations about how to achieve improvements in those measures. 

An idea that might offer a (partial) answer to this question is the proposal for the construction of measures of value of built environments (as perceived by users) based on the concepts of 'occasions' of human life, and the image evoked by those environments [Mann 2010]  Starting with the analysis of the 'occasion opportunities' (opportunities for experiences) offered by a place, and the value users place on those opportunities, this approach suggests the possibility of measures that can be linked to very specific features of the built environment responsible for positive or negative user responses. This in turn would support the development of much more specific and targeted policies for improvement, measured by indices of perceived 'value of occasion opportunities' existing in an environment, created -- and eliminated -- by proposed projects. The suggestion is that such indices can then be used as performance measures both for government work and for the effects of private enterprise activities in a community. The development towards introduction of alternative 'quality of life' or human happiness' indices should be complemented with the use of such, more specific measures. The research needed to expand the approach of the built environment value to overall quality of life supported by a community or society should receive priority support.

 The diagram [adapted from Mann2010] showing the different categories of occasions and occasion opportunity sets that can be studied, also indicates the complexity of the issue (of what is measured) that is far from being adequate addressed by current user surveys of quality of life appreciation.

Sets of occasions and the built environment

            The role of image in the valuation of built environment has been explored in [Mann ….]; this aspect -- related both to the issue of acceptance of collective plan proposals to specific segments of society ('who are we?';  'who do we want to be?') has not been sufficiently well explored in the discussion. It relates significantly to the question of participation in the formation of collective plans and policies. 

(Abstract of T.M. paper:

A frame of reference based on ‘occasion’ and ‘image’ as key concepts for the discussion of built environment (Mann 1980, 2009) is used to develop measures of the value of buildings. Possible measures of place value and building value are explored and seen as a function of individuals’ assessment of the value of the occasions or activities it serves (occasion values), and of the functional and image adequacy of places in the building. Valuation of environments using a single variable and measurement unit should be replaced with multidimensional assessments based on subjective user valuations. Techniques for the development of occasion and image programs of users are discussed as the basis for the evaluation of proposed designs and built environments. The discussion reveals the interdependence of occasion value and built environment value. The approach facilitates articulation of distinctions between ideal or program valuations of occasions, realistically expected or estimated values, and values of occasions as actually experienced or realized in the environment. The relationship between program and experienced valuations can then serve as measures of performance of the actual environment. As occasion- and image-based value concepts are applied to larger environments such as neighborhoods and city districts, the resulting measures can be seen as potentially useful contributions to quality of life indicators that can link policies for improvement more specifically with actual features of the environment. The inclusion of proposed concepts in the discourse about societal well-being and governmental performance is recommended to complement the predominant use measures such as the Gross Domestic Product as well as other proposed but equally general indices for societal well-being and happiness.

References:

Mann, Thorbjoern           

-          “Places and Occasions”  Design Methods and Theories  Vol. 14 # 2,  1980.

-           “The Need for Intermediate Level Paradigms”, Proceedings, Ninth European Meeting for Cybernetics and Systems, Vienna,  Austria 1988;

-   “Programming For Innovation: The Case of the Planning For Santa Maria Del Fiore, Florence”.  EDRA 20 Annual Meeting at Black Mountain 1989.

-           “Building Value Measures Based on Quality of Occasion and Image”, Proceedings,

Ninth European Meeting for Cybernetics and Systems, Vienna, 1992.

-   “Images of Government: A Comparative Analysis of Government Buildings in Renaissance Florence”.  EDRA 26, Boston 1995; 

-   “Notes on the Value of Buildings”, Proceedings, EDRA 28, Montreal 1997;

-       “User Survey of Image Preferences for a School of Architecture” Proceedings, EDRA 30, Orlando 1999;

-   “Built Environment Value Based on Occasion and Image”  2010 (unpubl.)

Stiglitz, Joseph E. and A. Sen and J.-P. Fitoussi:  MIS-measuring Our Lives:  Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up. The Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. The New Press, New York and London, 2010.