GDD-Webinar "What Indicators for maximum impact?"

How can we use appropriate indicators in the development of Doughnut data profiles to bridge the gap between what appears (politically) ‘feasible’ and ‘realistic’ and what is desirable and necessary to bring our city into the safe and just space of the Doughnut?

This question was at the heart of the webinar, which was jointly organised and moderated by the Doughnut Coalition Hamburg and the Swiss Doughnut Economics Network as part of this year’s ‘Global Doughnut Days’. Over 120 participants from more than 20 countries had registered to take part.

Link to the recording (german/ english). 

Why a webinar on Doughnut indicators?

 ‘What gets measured gets managed’, as the saying goes. In politics and public administration, too, there is a great need for clear indicators and data in order to set targets and to be able to assess and explain progress (or shortcomings). Whilst within the public sector there is a particular need to ensure and demonstrate the responsible use of taxpayers’ money, politicians are also concerned with their personal or party-related track record, in some cases with a view to their (re-)election. Political interests influence which objectives, measures and priorities are defined.

DEAL’s ‘Doughnut for Cities & Regions’ guide is based on the scientifically grounded vision of the Doughnut Theory and offers decision-makers in politics and public administration a tried-and-tested methodology, complete with free and openly accessible tools and practical examples, to bring their locality – even beyond the current legislative term – into the ‘safe and just space’ of the Doughnut. Central to this is the definition of relevant social and environmental dimensions and indicators.

To date, over 50 towns and local authorities are known to have used these tools to create a Data Doughnut for their area. DEAL’s recently published Indicator Library is particularly helpful in this regard.

Three experts – three different approaches

During the webinar, three recognised experts shared insights into their specific approaches and experiences.

Oliver Peters presented the data profile for the Rhein-Kreis-Neuss district, using the specifically quantitatively oriented set of indicators that he had helped to develop. He noted that indicators at the outcome and impact levels are far more difficult to define than those at the upstream input and output levels. Added to this is the often insufficient availability of local data, as well as the unreliability of proxy data, which is derived, for example, from data on comparable towns or from national-level data. Not least because of the limited data available, Oliver advocates compromises when defining dimensions and indicators. Furthermore, they must also be understandable and relevant to the target audience. In the data profile for Rhein-Kreis-Neuss, adjustments were therefore made compared with the original doughnut diagram; for example, ‘Climate Adaptation’ was added to the outer rim of the planetary boundaries, and ‘Sustainable Administration’ and ‘Global Responsibility & One World’ were added to the inner circle of basic social needs.

Camille Gilloots helped develop the data profile for the Geneva region and advises and supports various towns and municipalities in French-speaking Switzerland in drawing up Doughnut profiles. The ‘Indicator Triangle’ developed by her and her research colleagues has been adopted within the DEAL ‘Indicator Library’ for the classification of indicators. A distinction is made between three categories: firstly, indicators at the highest level, which help to bring about the state required by the doughnut model (‘Status’ indicators). Secondly, indicators used as ‘Responses’ at the policy level by politicians and administrators; and – thirdly – those describing ‘Activities’ at the level of behaviour, production and consumption. The three different categories influence one another.

Camille believes that only an ambitious approach will be effective in bringing about a far-reaching transformation in line with the Doughnut framework. She therefore advises that the data profile should be aligned with the highest Doughnut-compatible level, i.e. without altering the dimensions and indicators specified in the original Doughnut framework. If the relevant data is not immediately available, the corresponding values can still be added at a later date.

In Camille’s view, indicators at the ‘Policy’ and ‘Activity’ levels are also important. However, they should not be included in the Doughnut data profile, but used separately in downstream tools.

Máté Fischer helped develop the Budapest Degrowth Doughnut. His approach also aims for the most far-reaching transformation possible. However, according to the Budapest Doughnut experts, this can only be achieved through an explicit focus on degrowth. That is why the data profile for Budapest focuses on degrowth. The original Doughnut has been adapted accordingly; individual dimensions and indicators from the original Doughnut have been replaced. Indicators that Camille classifies as relating to policy and activity levels are also part of the Budapest Degrowth Doughnut. Most striking is the addition of a third segment – alongside planetary boundaries and basic social needs – labelled ‘Cultural’. It includes dimensions and indicators such as ‘Voluntary Work’, ‘Petition Signers’ and ‘Climate Change Ignorance’, which relate to the mindset and attitudes of the population.

Food for thought for further reflection

Based on the presentations, a number of points have emerged which were highlighted by several speakers simultaneously. For example:

• the limited availability of relevant data at local level
• the lack of civil society involvement in defining its basic needs
• the relevance of, and consideration given to, sufficiency in the data profile.

We will discuss these challenges in future events.

Greatest benefit of data portraits – the process?

The topic of ‘indicators’ is quite challenging. Thanks to the valuable input from the three experienced experts, we can better understand and contextualise the theoretical foundations. At the same time – considering the comments from the speakers – perhaps the greatest benefit of data portraits does not lie so much in defining indicators and data that are as precise, measurable or comparable as possible? Perhaps the greatest impact comes instead from the process itself and from engaging with the more fundamental questions that underlie it:

• What are the actual basic and (survival) needs of the local population?
• How should these be taken into account and calculated against the backdrop of planetary boundaries? For example, should 40 or 80 square metres be considered the necessary living space per person in my local community?
• Who sets these figures?
• What impact would these different reference or target values have on other social indicators, such as social cohesion, and on the ecological footprint – for example, through the building materials required and heating costs?

The greatest benefit of creating a Doughnut Data Portrait would therefore be to raise awareness of interconnections and to discuss which priorities should be set in line with the Doughnut. Such discussions give rise to new perspectives and insights. They can help foster a greater willingness to open the doors even wider to the necessary, far-reaching transformation.

The speakers at the webinar confirmed that this was precisely the observation they had made whilst supporting and developing Doughnut Data Portraits with politicians and local authorities. That’s encouraging and really gives us a boost!

We thank our brilliant speakers, our pro bono translator Julia Rönnau, our wonderful audience and our sponsors DEAL, KED, NUE & hamburg.global for making this event possible! And last but not least Karin Mader from SDEN for co-organizing this event.