SUSTAINABLE SCALE AND JUST DISTRIBUTION: A WELL-BEING ANALYSIS PROJECT IN CINCINNATI, OHIO

HENRY BURNS, HELEN MOORE, JON PICKMAN, SOPHIE RACEY, GIOVANNI ROCCO

INTRODUCTION- Jonathan Pickman

In response to recent, drastic increases in data availability and accessibility, many

economists and policy-makers are reconsidering the mechanisms for making policy decisions,

especially at a local level. Instead of analyzing quantitative measures of economic productivity,

data collection experts can use community surveys to holistically determine the wellbeing of a

community, providing clearer insights into the needs and wants of community members. We

propose that a comprehensive qualitative survey can be used to provide community leaders with

important indicators for future policy, and provides vital information about the intangible

cultures and complex issues that individual communities face. Refocusing data collection

towards wellbeing could refocus policy from abstract economic goals, to the genuine struggles

and ambitions of community members, providing a more informed, more circumspect

conversation around economic activity.

The wellbeing approach considers the preferences and needs of individuals, who

comprise a holistic opinion of their own communities, assuming that the survey collection is

statistically robust. Wellbeing, therefore, forces policymakers to recognize the big picture needs

of communities, provides a benchmark for development progress, and allows for the comparison

of within-city wellbeing. Further, performing a wellbeing analysis naturally holds many

exogenous factors constant. Rather than retroactively using data points like wealth per capita or

access to schools as measures of community health, a wellbeing analysis circumvents proxy data,

used to infer the overall health and vitality of a community.

1

Using Mark Aneilski’s model of wellbeing as a foundation for our work, our team

created a methodology for collecting and analyzing qualitative community survey data for

several neighborhoods in Cincinnati Ohio. We then explore a theoretical model for analyzing a

subset of our observations for intangible components of community life, by comparing and

contrasting data from greater Cincinnati area neighborhoods. Using the 2015 survey conducted

by the Community Building Institute, an agglomeration of local funders and neighborhood non-

profits in Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky, our team developed aggregate scores for the well-

being measures in the data. Using scores these scores, we can understand the factors that

distinguish the target neighborhoods, primarily through demographic and economic indicators,

which provides policymakers to determine the needs of different communities.

Our study converted the responses from the 2015 Place Matters survey into wellbeing

categories for the neighborhoods of Avondale, Covington, Madisonville, Price Hill, and Walnut

Hills. These communities have all received significant attention from the Place Matters

campaign, but are largely similar to each other, within the greater Cincinnati area. Our

methodology creates an aggregate of the individual components of our well being analysis,

which forms a simple metric, similar to a GDP or GNP, and can be used quickly to compare and

contrast community health. We find that well being analysis has incredible potential to

synthesize the subjective, qualitative experiences of community members, with the metric-based

policy making which has begun to take center stage in city halls across the nation.

LITERATURE REVIEW- Sophie Racey

For many years, Gross National Product (GNP), or the market value of all services and

products made in one year by labor and property supplied by the citizens of a country, has served

2

as the measure of growth of nations around the world.1 GNP defined production around the globe

based on the location of ownership and residence. While this appears an inclusive figure, it is not

able to distinguish between qualitative and quantitative improvements. For instance, GNP cannot

account for the difference between more product produced, and an increase in the quality of the

product produced. GNP simply labels both as “growth”. Here the measure of growth is based on

labor and capital, excluding all else. The total GNP is also reported as a per-capita value, which

means that the value is an average, and tells us nothing about the distribution around the average.

This limitation didn’t stop the wide use of the measure however, and in the US GNP served as a

measure of economic activity until 1991, when the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was adopted.2

GDP was developed as a means of measuring growth in the economy in 1934.3 GDP

defines production on the geographical location of the production. Thus GNP is a more general

metric as it includes the Gross Domestic Product, plus any income residents earned in the course

of investments overseas.4 GDP does not include income earned by overseas residents within the

domestic economy. Soon after its development, GDP became the main measure of national

progress and by proxy of national happiness as well.

These economic measures reflect the goals of the country at the time. Nations sought

stable, market-driven, exponential growth and while it’s fair to say they were interested in

employment for citizens, and keeping people alive, the main objective was growth. However, as

the boom and bust cycles here in the United States have proven time and time again, exponential

economic growth is just not possible. Even so, consumption has long been viewed and continues

to be viewed, as the means of achieving happiness. People with more wealth tend to be happier

1 National Economic Accounts. In Bureau of Economic Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

2 Survey of Current Business (August, 1991). In Economic and Statistics Administration & Bureau of Economic Analysis. (p. 8) Retrieved from https://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/1991/0891cont.pdf3 Anielski, Mark. The Economics of Happiness. New Society Publishers, 2007.4 Survey of Current Business, (p. 8)

3

than those who have less wealth, and within a population this does not go unnoticed. What is

unnoticed is that beyond a certain point, this trend disappears and more wealth does not equate

more happiness.5

The uses of these measures of economic growth, GNP and GDP have been based in the

thinking that economic welfare and the welfare of citizens are intertwined. Thus, pursuing

economic welfare ought to have positive results for citizens as well, but this is not always the

case. For example, GNP should increase when citizens take on additional labor positions, they

are earning more income certainly, but this measure doesn’t account for the lost leisure time,

stress, or financial losses for childcare all of which decrease the non-economic welfare of

citizens. These measures not account for the cost of crime, inequality, depreciation of natural

resources, or the degradation of the natural environment.6 These measures also do not account

for the benefit of unpaid time spent with family, volunteering, or spent in leisure. Studies have

even shown negative relationships between GNP/GDP and national welfare and wellbeing.7

This has been a concern for many since the very beginning. Simon Kuznets, who helped

develop GDP, warned Congress that, “the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a

measurement of national income as defined by the GDP...goals for 'more' growth should specify

of what and for what".8 Many still share this sentiment and acknowledge the inadequacies of

these consumptive, economic welfare measures. Economists and community leaders alike are

pushing for alternative means of measuring the welfare or wellbeing of communities. Even

Robert F. Kennedy once said, “GNP measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our

5 R. Easterlin, Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? In P. David and M. Rede, eds., Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz, New York: Academic Press, 1974. 6 Anielski, M. and J.Rowe. 1999. The Genuine Progress Indicator – 1998 Update. Redefining Progress, San Francisco. March 1999.7 Daly, H. E., & Farley, J. (2011). Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications (2nd ed.). Washington DC: Island Press.8 Anielski, M. 1999. The Genuine Progress Indicator: A Principled Approach to Economics. Encompass Magazine, October 1999

4

wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures

everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile”.9

Thus, alternative measures of wellbeing have been developed to account for these

externalities. In the late 1980s, Bhutan decided to abandon GNP as the primary measure and

instead measure those factors, which contribute to happiness.10 This measure is called the Gross

National Happiness (GNH). Other alternatives include the Measured Economic Welfare (MEW),

Happy Planet Index (HPI), and Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and these seek to account for

those externalities not included in more traditional economic welfare measurements. The use of

such measures can also lead toward goals to address wellbeing.

The World Happiness Report for 2017 ranked the United States 14th in the world for

happiness, which is lower than the 2015 ranking, 13th in the world. The researchers attribute this

decline to, “declining social support" as well as a decline in trust — and an increased sense of

corruption”.11 However, the report doesn’t end there. They go on to suggest how happiness and

wellbeing in the US might be improved. Researchers suggest that in the future the US ought to

focus on building social capital through, “campaign finance reform, a set of policies aiming at

reducing income and wealth inequality, improve the social relations between the native-born and

immigrant populations, acknowledge and move past the fear created by 9/11 and its memory, and

improved educational quality, access, and attainment”.12

Wellbeing assessments are not limited to the national level though. Mark Anielski

developed the Genuine Wealth Model, which takes into account five different types of capital

including Human, Social, Natural, Built, and Financial. These five assets were identified as

9 Meyer, & Kirby, Harvard Business Review, (2011). https://hbr.org/2011/03/wealth-and-well-being-the-lega.html10 Bhutan Planning Commission, Bhutan 2020: A Vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Happiness, Thimphu: Royal Government of Bhutan Planning Commission, 1999, (p. 19). 11 Aubrey, A. (2017, March 20). Global Ranking Of Happiness Has Happy News For Norway And Nicaragua. In National Public Radio.12 Anielski, M. 2003. Measuring the Genuine Wealth of Communities. Anielski Management Inc.

5

contributing significantly to a person’s quality of life. Anielski has used this model in many local

wellbeing assessments in Canada, like the one completed in the Town of Olds in Alberta. The

model was developed in order to, “provide economic services that help communities and nations

design, build and operate economies and businesses of well being”.13 Similar efforts are being

made in the city of Cincinnati, even at Xavier University. The Community Building Institute

(CBI) at Xavier University, seeks to help communities organize their own redevelopment by

tapping into the passion of residents and identifying the physical assets of the neighborhood.

DATA- Henry Burns

The CBI conducts bi-yearly Place Matters Social Capital Surveys, which seek to

understand individual and neighborhood priorities, while also analyzing social capital and

changes in communities over time. Data points used in this study were pulled from the 2015

Place Matters Social Capital Survey that examines five neighborhoods; Avondale, Covington,

Madison, Price Hill, and Walnut Hill. Surveys were conducted either on paper copy given to

participants, or through providing an online link to the survey platform. Responders varied in

age, race, and household income. In the development of the survey, two documents were used:

the Social Capital and Our Community (A Publication of the University of Minnesota Extension

Center for Community Vitality) and Social Capital in Greater Cincinnati: Building on Trust,

Reciprocity, and Cooperation (The Greater Cincinnati Foundation, University of Cincinnati, and

Institute for Policy Research).

METHODOLOGY- Henry Burns

Since the CBI’s survey is designed to find solutions for individual neighborhoods, instead

of comparisons between neighborhoods, number values were assigned to responses in order to

13 Anielski, Mark. The Economics of Happiness. New Society Publishers, 2007.

6

find statistical correlations. Response values were selected based on whether the answer showed

a positive correlation to social capital. Questions were multiple-choice, representing a range from

“Agree Strongly” to “Disagree Strongly,” in this case “Agree Strongly” would have the highest

social capital value and was assigned the highest numerical value. Total numerical values for

responses were then corrected for population, and these numbers were used for comparison on

the neighborhood basis.

Table 1. Example of how numerical values were assigned to multiple choice survey answers.

Survey Question Response Numerical Value Assigned

“Disagree Strongly” 1

“Disagree Somewhat” 2

“Agree Somewhat” 3

“Agree Strongly” 4

DISCUSSION- Gio Rocco

This project looked at the five “Place Matters” neighborhoods in the Cincinnati area:

Avondale, Covington, Madisonville, Price Hill, and Walnut Hills. There were ten metrics being

used to measure wellbeing: Neighbor helpfulness, housing conditions, youth opportunities,

healthcare access, healthy food access, neighborhood condition, street condition, organization

awareness, dependability of neighbors, and safety. From the data from surveys asking about

these ten metrics, Covington was found to have the highest overall well-being, and Price Hill

was found to have the lowest overall wellbeing.

Covington has their highest score in the safety category. This neighborhood scores

595.73 in safety—over two hundred points higher than the next safest neighborhood behind it.

Another two neighborhood competitive advantages Covington has are their neighborhood’s

7

organization awareness and their dependability of neighbors with scores of 501.57 and 457.79

respectively. The categories that Covington scores the lowest in were youth opportunities and

healthcare access. Covington scores a 234.02 in healthcare access, and in their lowest scoring

category—youth opportunities—Covington scores a 171.01. Overall, Covington has a total well-

being score of 3,687.46, giving it the highest ranking of the five studied neighborhoods.

Madisonville, a neighborhood on the northeast edge of Cincinnati, ranks second in

overall well-being of the five neighborhoods studied. Like Covington, Madisonville ranks

highest in safety with a score of 336.17. Its next strongest categories are given rating from the

mid-two hundred to three hundred. These categories are organizational awareness with a score

of 300.94, neighborhood condition with a score of 265.65, housing condition with a score of

265.1, and dependability of neighbors with a score of 239.73. The lowest scoring category for

Madisonville is youth opportunities with a score of 79.59. The second lowest scoring category,

which is slightly above youth opportunities, is healthcare access with a score of 87.16. Of the

neighborhoods studies, Madisonville ranks second highest for wellbeing with a score of

2,164.38.

The neighborhood ranking third in overall well-being is Avondale, a neighborhood at the

heart of the City of Cincinnati. Avondale’s competitive advantage is their organizational

awareness. With a score of 338.02, the neighborhood’s organizational awareness ranks

substantially higher than all of the other categories being measured within that neighborhood.

Behind neighborhood organizational awareness, Avondale ranks at 242.34 in neighborhood

safety. Neighbor helpfulness ranks third with a score of 189.64, and the scores of the other seven

categories hover around 150. Dependability of neighbors scores at 166.8, housing conditions

scores at 159.86, neighborhood condition is scores at 151.92, healthy food access receives a

8

score of 151.72, and youth opportunities scores at 151.42. The lowest scoring category is street

condition at 135.97. Avondale’s total well-being score is 1,833.76, with room for improvement.

Walnut Hills, a neighborhood poised to be Cincinnati’s next large-scale economically

developed neighborhood, ranks second-to-last in the overall well-being analysis study. Similar

to Avondale, Walnut Hills scores highest in its organization awareness with a score of 225.95.

Housing conditions, neighborhood conditions, street conditions, and healthy food access all score

at about 200, with scores of 212.15, 190.52, 190.52, and 184.25 respectively. Walnut Hills’s

lowest score is youth opportunities at 78.37, and its second lowest score is healthcare access at

108.57. In total, Walnut hills receives a wellbeing score of 1675.87.

The lowest scoring neighborhood in overall well-being is one of Cincinnati’s largest

neighborhoods, a west side neighborhood, Price Hill. The scores for the individual well-being

metrics were all generally low with a range of 173.32 to 68.83 and a mean of 134.52. The high

end of the range comes from the neighborhoods relatively strong organizational awareness. With

most well-being scores from about one hundred-fifty to one hundred, Price Hill’s safety,

dependability of neighbors, street conditions, neighborhood conditions, healthy food access,

youth opportunities, and housing conditions, on average, fair the worst of the five neighborhoods

studied. Their worst score, at 68.83, is healthcare access. Price Hill ranks the lowest in overall

well-being of the neighborhoods studied with a total score of 1,345.27.

Of the metrics used in this study, Covington, Madisonville, Avondale, Walnut Hills, and

Price Hill received the highest total score in organizational awareness at 1,539.82. The second

highest total score of the five neighborhoods is safety with a score of 1,506.69. The lowest scores

between the five neighborhoods were in youth opportunities and healthcare access. Youth

opportunities ranks the lowest with a score of 607.31, and healthcare access is not much better

9

with a score of 644.63. Unilaterally, the neighborhoods in this study lack healthcare access and

opportunities for youth.

The data used in this study has some limitations. The data comes from surveys

conducted by the Community Building Institute that were filled-in by residents of the

neighborhood; therefore, many of these ratings are subjective. Moreover, there is “drop off” in

the surveys; for example, participants in the survey had the option to skip questions. This may

not give a comprehensive understanding of wellbeing if many people are not answering all of the

questions. Another limitation of the data is that there may have been a selection bias in the

process of finding participants to partake in the study. The people who took this study may have

more leisure or interest in a wellbeing survey, and they may give results that are informed by

their class status and dedication to the neighborhood. There may be people who do not have the

leisure to take the study, and for those people, conditions may be even worse. Another selection

bias would be using data based on these Place Matters neighborhoods to apply wellbeing

analysis on the rest of Cincinnati. These neighborhoods have substantial amount of work and

finances being put into them by Community Development Corporations, the City, and for profit

businesses. It may be misleading to take the information from these studies and shape broader

opinions on what the wellbeing situation is in Cincinnati.

There may also be a point in which scores would level off regardless of how poor

neighborhood condition are. For example, if a neighborhood does not have a adequate health

clinic it will score low on access to healthcare; however, this neighborhood will not score a zero

because in surrounding neighborhoods may have accessible health clinics. By their nature, non-

segregated cities would potentially create a point of “leveling off” on the scores in some

categories. This is perhaps a compelling reason to advocate for sustainable, dense urban scale.

10

If cities and neighborhoods are dense and integrated enough, even if a neighborhood lacks a

resource, adjacent neighborhood resources may be readily available mitigating the effects that

lacking neighborhood resources may have. Sustainably scaled cities may be a means to a justly

distributed overall wellbeing.

Figure 1. Survey results for Avondale, Covington, Madisonville, Price Hill, and Walnut Hills on ten well-being indicators.

CONCLUSION- Helen Moore

As a city looking to improve its vigor and health, Cincinnati is the perfect city to

undertake a widespread well-being analysis. While measures like GNP and GDP decline in use,

and people see a disconnect between their economic well-being and their personal well-being, a

new, more encompassing measure is needed. Mark Anielski’s genuine wealth model provides

measurements on all types of capital, promising a bigger picture on the total wealth of a

community. As city leadership realizes the health of their city and citizens is declining even as

traditional economic indicators say otherwise, cities will begin using well-being analyses.

11

Cincinnati has started the process of undertaking a city-wide well-being analysis. The

CBI has conducted surveys on four Cincinnati neighborhoods and one city in Northern

Kentucky. The responses and results are promising. Based on the results of the Place Matters

surveys, we recommend that the City of Cincinnati addresses the widespread need for access to

health care and access to healthy food.

The Place Matters surveys provide a baseline for future well-being analyses of these, and

other, Cincinnati neighborhoods. In the future, we would like to see all fifty-two neighborhoods

surveyed to provide an overall well-being index for Cincinnati and for each individual

neighborhood. Once the City has an initial well-being baseline, the city can address concerns that

neighborhoods and Cincinnatians as a whole have, which will improve future well-being. The

new Office of Data and Performance Analytics in the City of Cincinnati could partner with the

CBI and other community organizations to facilitate, execute, and interpret survey results.

Cincinnati can become a leader in the use of well-being analyses, attracting new residents,

businesses, and improving the health of its current residents and businesses.

As a growing number of people are concerned about the environment and the future of

climate change here in Cincinnati, we suggest that the future well-being surveys include

questions about environmental policies and afflictions. Severe weather stemming from climate

change, specifically heat waves, are harming Cincinnatians. The well-being survey should ask

questions that can address measures to cope with the effects of heat waves, as well as initiatives

that will help to reverse climate change. We hope to gauge the support of environmentally

friendly initiatives in Cincinnati, such as a carbon tax or using 100% renewable energy resource.

Using the groundwork already in place, the City of Cincinnati can conduct a

comprehensive well being analysis of all fifty-two neighborhoods, which includes questions

12

about sustainability efforts of the city. The future of Cincinnati should be shaped by meeting the

needs of its citizens, which will improve the quality of life for all Cincinnatians while adhering

to a sustainable framework.

13