| “Mind
the Gap” is an idea that grew out of work on community sustainability
by Diana Pearce, Ph.D. at the University of Washington in Seattle,
leading to her “Self Sufficiency Standard.” In Massachusetts,
this “Self Sufficiency Standard” has been used to evaluate many
towns and regions, and has become a central component to measure
the progress of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative in Boston,
a long-term success story which chronicles a community’s journey
toward economic, environmental, and social health.
Research
conducted over the past decade by the Massachusetts Department of
Public Health, Barnstable County Department of Human Services and
the Women’s Union documents that health corresponds with a person’s
or household’s capacity for economic self-sufficiency. Thus,
we believe “Mind the Gap” can be applied in a similar way on Cape
Cod as in Boston, Seattle, and hundreds of other communities.
Therefore, this 2005 Sustainability Indicators Report has modified
the “Mind the Gap” to provide a composite universal indicator
of Cape Cod’s economic, environmental and social health.
This
Universal Indicator addresses
this fundamental question: “Are Cape Cod residents and households
able to sustain their health and security with the economic, social
and environmental resources available to them?” The ideal
is no gap at all - a “positive” number. The larger the number
(i.e. the smaller the gap), the healthier the community.
The Universal Indicator could
derive this number using three measures:
- Economic
: The ratio of the % of
households earning less than $15,000 annually to the % of households
earning more than $150,000 annually.
- Social
: The difference between
the County’s median household income and the cost of living
for a specific type of household (for example, two adults, one
school age child, and one pre-school child).
- Environmental
: Perhaps we could employ
the concept of an “ecological footprint” for Cape Cod.
The size of this foot print could incorporate a composite of
the ecological impact of individuals’ on Cape Cod’s use of food,
mobility (transportation), shelter, and goods/services.
Indicators like this comprise an online “quiz” ( http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp
). Since the planet as a whole can sustain an impact of
4.5 acres per person and (using the “ecological footprint quiz”)
a typical Cape Cod resident’s footprint turned out to be 38
acres, this highlighted a “gap” of -33.5 (the difference between
actual usage and maximum sustainable usage), or a % of 844%.
Incorporating
this “gap” with other “gaps”: Consider adding this number
(the ecological footprint gap) to the earlier formula of cost of
living/median income and low income/high income ratio (we wouldn’t
want to multiply it because of the potential of generating a larger
negative number). If the “gap” from the social/economic numbers
was 26.5, adding 33.5 would make the gap “60” or minus 60 if we
wanted to have negative numbers on a scale of -100 to +100.
Incremental reduction in any (ideally all!) of the numbers would
cause the “gap” to become smaller; which would allow us to measure
progress over time to the Sustainability Indicator Project 2020
goals.
Note
that (1) will always be a positive number because there will always
be variance in earning capacity of households. Note that
(2) could be a positive number (if cost of living for this family
is less than median household income) or a negative number (if cost
of living for this family is more than median household income).
The “Mind the Gap” indicator is (1) divided by (2).
A positive number is good; the larger the better. A negative
number is bad; the more negative the worse. Incorporating
the “Ecological Footprint” adds more meaning to the “gap” because
whatever our wage/cost of living gap is, if we “eat all our seed
corn” (i.e. completely exhaust the earth’s and the Cape’s carrying
capacity) we will experience an ecological meltdown even if we are
rich.
The
Universal Indicator could derive a number for “baseline” purposes
using all three measures. The following three-element formula
is just a “for instance” illustration for discussion purposes:
- The
ratio of the % of households earning less than $15,000 annually
to the % of households earning more than $150,000 annually in
2005.
- The
difference between the County’s median household income and
the cost of living for a specific type of household (for example,
two adults, one school age child, and one pre-school child).
Note that (1) will always be a positive number as there
will always be variance in earning capacity of households.
Note that (2) could be a positive number (if cost of living
for this family is less than median household income) or a negative
number (if cost of living for this family is more than median
household income). Take this differential and convert
it to a -100 to +100 scale.
- Fold
in the “Ecological Footprint.” Begin with (1) divided
by (2). A positive number is good; the larger, the better.
A negative number is bad, more negative, worse.
To whatever number is generated, apply to a factor of -100 to
+100. Then add/or subtract if negative, the number of
acres we miss the optimum ecological footprint. The figure
for 2004 thus becomes: -2654.9 = 1.07/-2656 or (on the
minus 100 to plus 100 scale, -26.5) minus the ecological footprint
differential from carrying capacity (-33.5) for a composite
number of -60 or a very big gap.
|
