99
creating linkages, through data and other information, between local concerns and priorities and
national goals, so that the SDGs can assist in
driving local change and serve as a framing reference against which to report and compare local
progress.
This chapter begins by reviewing recent
research on the role of community well-being
and how measuring community well-being can
support localizing the SDGs. The subsequent
sections tell the story of Peg in three parts: (1)
preliminary work and development of an indicator framework that measures what matters to
Winnipeggers (2009–2012); (2) the development
and use of the initial Peg platform (2013–2018);
and (3) the redesign of Peg, to link the existing
indicators to the SDGs, and the process of developing a software tool that facilitates the development and maintenance of other CIS portals.
We assert that, because CIS have long supported data-informed decision-making to drive
community well-being, they are a well-suited
tool to assist communities in tracking local SDG
progress. Likewise, the SDGs, as a global movement to spur action on sustainable development
concerns, provide a lens by which to reinvigorate
interest in data and action on local priorities in
communities around the world.
8.3
Measuring Community
Well-being to Localize
the SDGs
8.3.1 Community Well-being
Community well-being is a concept connected to
locally shared culture, norms, and values.
Indigenous communities around the world identify with “The Good Life” as an essential element
of their cosmovision. Andean groups call it
“Sumak Kawsay” or “Buen Vivir” perceiving
well-being as a way to live in harmony with oneself, others, and with nature (Altmann 2013). In
Canada, the Cree people call the good life “Minopimatisiwin.” This concept similarly encompasses the notion of harmony, respect, growth,
and healing by all. Here, relationships are a key
value, underlining the importance of community
(Deer and Falkenberg 2016). Western cultures
tend to view community well-being as a balance
between individual and community prosperity,
under a backdrop of social, economic, environmental, spiritual, and cultural lenses (Lee and
Kim 2015). Considering the broad nature of the
definition of community well-being, there is little
surprise that measurement is equally as
complex.
8.3.2 Measuring Community
Well-being
Community indicator frameworks have grown
out of an understanding that national-level indicators of the economy or GDP alone are insufficient measures of community health and vitality
(Kim 2016). Quantitative definitions of community well-being most commonly include themes
of social vitality and public engagement, employment, education, housing affordability, the natural environment, physical and mental health,
sport and cultural activities, time use, and basic
needs (Frankish et al. 2002; CIW 2016). There
are as many interpretations of community wellbeing as there are communities to define it. At its
most basic, measuring well-being is the “process
of measuring the status of the community as it
pertains to the goals for the community” (Perry
and Temple 2015, p. 6). Every community has
unique issues, values, and goals, and thus, the
indicators used to measure well-being often vary
from place to place (Ibid.).
The literature points to five predominant thematic indicator measurement movements that
have influenced the field of community wellbeing measurement. These are Quality of Life,
Healthy
Communities,
Sustainability,
Government Performance and Benchmarking
and “Subjective Well-being,” which incorporates
Public Happiness and Life Satisfaction. CIS systems have attempted to collect data for indicators
based on these themes (Warner 2014; Cummins
et al. 2002). Localizing the SDGs can connect
these five thematic measurement movements to
the Global Goals.
8 Data for Good for All: Enabling All Communities to Track Progress Toward SDG Implementation
creating linkages, through data and other information, between local concerns and priorities and
national goals, so that the SDGs can assist in
driving local change and serve as a framing reference against which to report and compare local
progress.
This chapter begins by reviewing recent
research on the role of community well-being
and how measuring community well-being can
support localizing the SDGs. The subsequent
sections tell the story of Peg in three parts: (1)
preliminary work and development of an indicator framework that measures what matters to
Winnipeggers (2009–2012); (2) the development
and use of the initial Peg platform (2013–2018);
and (3) the redesign of Peg, to link the existing
indicators to the SDGs, and the process of developing a software tool that facilitates the development and maintenance of other CIS portals.
We assert that, because CIS have long supported data-informed decision-making to drive
community well-being, they are a well-suited
tool to assist communities in tracking local SDG
progress. Likewise, the SDGs, as a global movement to spur action on sustainable development
concerns, provide a lens by which to reinvigorate
interest in data and action on local priorities in
communities around the world.
8.3
Measuring Community
Well-being to Localize
the SDGs
8.3.1 Community Well-being
Community well-being is a concept connected to
locally shared culture, norms, and values.
Indigenous communities around the world identify with “The Good Life” as an essential element
of their cosmovision. Andean groups call it
“Sumak Kawsay” or “Buen Vivir” perceiving
well-being as a way to live in harmony with oneself, others, and with nature (Altmann 2013). In
Canada, the Cree people call the good life “Minopimatisiwin.” This concept similarly encompasses the notion of harmony, respect, growth,
and healing by all. Here, relationships are a key
value, underlining the importance of community
(Deer and Falkenberg 2016). Western cultures
tend to view community well-being as a balance
between individual and community prosperity,
under a backdrop of social, economic, environmental, spiritual, and cultural lenses (Lee and
Kim 2015). Considering the broad nature of the
definition of community well-being, there is little
surprise that measurement is equally as
complex.
8.3.2 Measuring Community
Well-being
Community indicator frameworks have grown
out of an understanding that national-level indicators of the economy or GDP alone are insufficient measures of community health and vitality
(Kim 2016). Quantitative definitions of community well-being most commonly include themes
of social vitality and public engagement, employment, education, housing affordability, the natural environment, physical and mental health,
sport and cultural activities, time use, and basic
needs (Frankish et al. 2002; CIW 2016). There
are as many interpretations of community wellbeing as there are communities to define it. At its
most basic, measuring well-being is the “process
of measuring the status of the community as it
pertains to the goals for the community” (Perry
and Temple 2015, p. 6). Every community has
unique issues, values, and goals, and thus, the
indicators used to measure well-being often vary
from place to place (Ibid.).
The literature points to five predominant thematic indicator measurement movements that
have influenced the field of community wellbeing measurement. These are Quality of Life,
Healthy
Communities,
Sustainability,
Government Performance and Benchmarking
and “Subjective Well-being,” which incorporates
Public Happiness and Life Satisfaction. CIS systems have attempted to collect data for indicators
based on these themes (Warner 2014; Cummins
et al. 2002). Localizing the SDGs can connect
these five thematic measurement movements to
the Global Goals.
8 Data for Good for All: Enabling All Communities to Track Progress Toward SDG Implementation