Search

Target 19 of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 17 calls for the use of alternative measures of economic welfare in addition to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) is an example of such a measure, including various non-market benefits and environmental and social costs unaccounted for in GDP. This study presents the results from the first estimate of the GPI for Iceland over the period 2000–2019. Iceland represents an interesting case study given its remoteness, environmental vulnerability, natural resource dependency, and fluctuating economic performance in recent years, which has featured a banking collapse and tourism-fuelled resurgence. The study finds that Iceland's GPI was equal to between 2.41 and 3.05 times the value of national GDP. Statistics for both GDP and the GPI peaked in 2019 at 2,970,076 (USD M 24,237) and 7,163,300 million ISK (USD M 58,443), respectively. Mean annual rates of per capita expansion for both GDP and the GPI were 2.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Despite the scale of the Icelandic GPI, the study also revealed non-negligible values for environmental and social costs which, in aggregate, were equal to between 17.8% and 25.4% of the value of consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recognising the well-known limitations of economic growth as a litmus test of progress and the call by Target 19 of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17 to "develop measurements on progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product", this paper advances understanding of the linkages between alternative measures of economic well-being, the well-being economy and the SDGs. A conceptual model is presented, linking four capital assets to well-being goals and domains, which are connected to related SDGs. An assessment is conducted on the extent to which Gross Domestic Product and five alternative indicators of economic well-being (Environmentally Adjusted Net Domestic Product, Measure of Economic Welfare, Genuine Savings, Genuine Progress Indicator and Inclusive Wealth Index) align with (a) the dimensions of economic well-being, and (b) various environmental, economic, social and institutional targets set by the SDGs. The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) is found to be the most comprehensive in coverage, accounting for market-based welfare, services from essential capital, and various environmental and social costs, and linking directly to targets in fourteen of the seventeen SDGs. The paper discusses how greater use of alternative measures of economic well-being by policymakers can encourage transitions to economies which prioritise well-being and desirability objectives. • Conceptual model of wellbeing economy presented – capital asset classes, domains and goals. • Alternative measures of economic wellbeing have far greater linkages to SDGs than GDP. • Genuine Progress Indicator most closely aligned with SDG targets. • Alternative measures of economic wellbeing can promote policy initiatives with SDG benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last three years, national indicator sets and international coalitions for advancement of the well-being economy's ambitions have begun to be developed. This study applies a capital asset, well-being goals and domains, and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework to evaluate the scope and comprehensiveness of the indicator sets of Iceland, Scotland and New Zealand. Both national objectives and SDG indicator priorities, determined through each nation's stakeholder consultation process, have greatly shaped the indicator selection process, albeit leading to a narrow concentration in some areas. There is currently more focus on natural capital preservation and environmental performance in the cases of Iceland and New Zealand, whereas Scotland integrates analysis on contributions to human well-being via ecosystem services. Additionally, resources that appear critical to these economies and processes that undermine the productive capacities of the resource base are not represented by indicators. Spatial scale variations are evident too. Domestic phenomena are the focus of Iceland and New Zealand's indicators sets, whilst Scotland's is more internationalist. Despite these inconsistencies, it is evident that the national indicator sets are inclusive and reflective of socio-cultural priorities, including the needs of certain Indigenous peoples, often monitoring criteria that go beyond the limits of the SDGs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study examines the socio-cultural values of multiple ecosystem services (ES) sourced from whales in Skjálfandi Bay, North Iceland, with many beneficiaries living in and visiting the town of Húsavík. The study begins to address the research gap in non-monetary valuation of marine ecosystem services. Based on a multi-method approach, it elicits stakeholders' perceptions of the contribution of whale ES to human wellbeing using stakeholder mapping, semi-structured interviews, observations, and socio-cultural preference surveys. The key whale ES identified by the local stakeholders were cultural, most frequently mentioned being recreation and education. The most commonly mentioned ES values were related to economic benefits from the whale watching industry. The preference survey reveals that regulating and maintenance ES were valued most highly with a mean score of 4.0 out of 5.0, cultural ES were second with a mean score of 3.5, and provisioning ES in the form of food and raw materials were valued the least with a mean of 0.75. Interview data also reveals some marine ES management challenges originating from intensified tourism, industrial development, and climate change. The results of the study have the potential to inform marine resource management in Iceland by including socio-cultural values associated with whale resources. • The paper examines socio-cultural values of whale ES in Skjálfandi Bay, Iceland. • A multi-method approach is used to identify and assess ten key ES and their values. • The most highly valued ES group is regulating and maintenance, followed by cultural, and provisioning. • The key management challenges relate to identifying and accounting for trade-offs and synergies between different marine ES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]