c:\documents and settings\spikowski\desktop\task 2-1 ca.wpd

$: C:\Documents and Settings\Spikowski\Desktop\Task 2-1 CA.wpd$
CentralTexas

Broward County

Maryland

New YorkChicagoEnvision

Utah

Seattle

Jacksonville

Palm Beach CountyMartin County

SPIKOWSKI PLANNING ASSOCIATES

Draft – June 20, 2012

SE Florida Prosperity Plan

Indicators and Benchmarksin Successful Regional Visions and Plans

INTRODUCTIONNumerical indicators, such as the Consumer PriceIndex, are commonly used to guide policy-making atthe national level. Likewise, local governments some-times use “community indicators” to analyze theircompetitiveness or to measure progress toward policygoals in fields such as transportation or quality of life.

This report is an early step supporting the Seven50Plan for Southeast Florida Prosperity, a plan forseven counties over 50 years. This report examinesindicators and benchmarks that have been usedacross the state and nation, either separately or aspart of regional visioning efforts, to identify whichindicators and best practices would be most helpfulfor planning and prosperity in southeast Florida.

Seven50 will use indicators in three different ways:

• To quantify existing conditions throughout thesoutheast Florida region.

• To assess the potential benefits or costs of al-ternative scenarios for the region’s future.

• To allow the measurement of future progresstoward the policy aspirations that will be for-mulated in the plan.

Other states, regions, and metropolitan areas haveused indicators for each of these purposes.

INDICATORS vs. BENCHMARKSThe terms “indicators” and “benchmarks” are some-times confused, or even used interchangeably, butthey have different meanings.

This report uses the terms in these ways:

• Indicators: Measurements that provide infor-mation about past and current trends to assistcommunity leaders in making decisions thataffect future outcomes.

• Benchmarks: Quantifiable targets thatcrystalize community aspirations. Indicatorscan be used to measure progress over time inachieving these targets.

Indicators and benchmarks are particular kinds ofquantitative measures. They differ from other quanti-tative measures that are used by local governments,although these other measures are sometimes used increating indicators or benchmarks. Examples of theseother quantitative measures include:

• Level-of-service standards used by local gov-ernments in Florida to measure traffic conges-tion and assess impacts of future development.

• Public opinion surveys that measure satisfac-tion with social or civic conditions.

• National standards used by government agen-cies to compare their performance with peeragencies.

Most indicators are based on objective data. However,the selection of which data are important to a commu-nity is inevitably laden with value judgments as towhich issues are important and which measurementswould allow progress to be tracked on those issues.Simply put, indicators are statistics which reflectdirectly on matters of public concern.

COMMUNITY INDICATORSIndicators can be formulated for a wide variety ofsubjects; for example, economic indicators such as theConsumer Price Index, sustainability indicators suchas vehicle-miles-traveled, social indicators that mea-sure physical health or quality of life, or public-ser-vice indicators that will be used to analyze govern-ment performance.

The indicators that will be used in the Seven50 planfor southeast Florida are considered community indi-cators because they will address local and regionalissues instead of national or international issues.

The preliminary subjects for indicators are:• Economic Development• Housing • Transportation• Water• Environment • Climate Resiliency• Community Assets and Culture • Education• Healthy Communities• Inclusive Regional Leadership• Food Supply and Distribution• Waste Disposal• Energy Sources

Whenever possible, indicators that are based on thelatest available data will be compared to older data onthe same subject so that trends will be apparent.

The following sections of this report summarize thesuccessful use of indicators (and in some cases bench-marks) in other parts of Florida and the nation, fol-lowed by a summary of past and current use of indica-tors in southeast Florida.

This report will conclude with recommendations onhow community indicators and benchmarks can bestbe used in the Seven50 regional prosperity plan.

“Indicators alone are idle information which hardlyconvey any meaningful message for policy-making. Itis the analysis of indicators against the wider contextand policy objectives that provides the added valueof converting information into intelligence.”

— Cecilia Wong, in Indicators forUrban and Regional Planning: TheInterplay of Policy and Methods,Taylor & Francis Group, 2005

Page 1 SE Florida Prosperity Plan

JACKSONVILLE: QUALITY-OF-LIFE INDICATORS

Perhaps the most-respected community indicatorprogram in the country began in Jacksonville, Floridain 1985 and has operated continuously ever since. Itcovers the consolidated city/county of Jacksonville,with a current population of about 865,000. The spon-sors have been the non-profit Jacksonville Commu-nity Council Inc. (JCCI) and the Chamber of Com-merce.

From the beginning, this project explicitly acknowl-edged the critical importance of quality-of-life issuesto successful economic development. Quality of lifewas defined broadly as “a feeling of well-being, fulfill-ment, or satisfaction resulting from factors in theexternal environment.”

This project used citizen volunteers to define theirown vision for the community and then institutional-ized this self-reflection through annual updates of theindicators. These indicators serve as a yardstick forneeded community improvement, not as promotionalmaterial extolling Jacksonville’s virtues. Its focus hasnever been on measuring Jacksonville’s shortcomingsor advantages compared to other places.

The Jacksonville indicators have not been used toevaluate alternative futures. The indicators are nottied to policy recommendations, although JCCI has aseparate process for developing action plans.

These indicators operate more like an outside evalua-tion of society’s performance. This approach allowsthe indicators to “speak for themselves” rather thanexcusing or hiding failures or being viewed as promot-ing any agenda beyond improving Jacksonville’s qual-ity of life.

Ten-year targets were set for each indicator for theyear 2000. Later targets were for five-year periods tomake the targets more meaningful and attainable.

Jacksonville’s indicators are grouped into nine catego-ries:

• Achieving educational excellence• Growing a vibrant economy• Preserving the natural environment• Promoting social wellbeing and harmony• Enjoying arts, recreation, and culture• Sustaining a healthy community• Maintaining a responsive government• Moving around efficiently and safely• Keeping the community safe

Leaders of the Jacksonville project decided againstcreating an overall index summarizing quality-of-lifegains or losses, believing that such an index woulddistort rather than clarify inasmuch as people judgetheir quality of life in many different ways.

Jacksonville’s original indicators were reported for allof Duval County, which is contiguous with Jackson-ville. As growth expanded beyond Duval County,some indicators began to reported for the entire met-ropolitan statistical area, which encompasses fouradditional counties with a combined population of1,345,000. For other indicators, data is now obtainedfor geographic boundaries smaller than DuvalCounty.

In recent years, this program has been expanded toaddress difficult equity issues. Since 2005, an annualRace Relations Progress Report has assessed progressin eliminating racial disparities.

Jacksonville’s indicators are now printed annually asthe Quality of Life Progress Report for Jacksonvilleand Northeast Florida. The data can also be accessedon-line through the “Community Snapshot,” an inter-active map that allows full access to all indicators.Comparisons can be made for the same geographicarea over time, in context with progress in othergeographic areas. Customizable reports and chartsare easily available to the general public.

www.jcci.org/jcciwebsite/snapshot/atlas.html


SEATTLE:SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS

Another early and influential indicator project wasinitiated in 1991 by an ad hoc citizens’ group, Sus-tainable Seattle. As the name suggests, these indica-tors were explicitly derived from the emergingsustainability movement, in contrast to the morepragmatic Jacksonville quality-of-life indicators.

The results of 40 separate indicators were first pub-lished in 1993, then updated in 1995 and again in1998. Most data was reported for King County, Wash-ington, with a current population of 1,930,000.

No attempt was made to create an overall index thatsummarized the indicators, but as shown by the ar-rows in the illustration on this page, a scorecard canbe created by counting how many indicators went up,stayed the same, or went down.

As in Jacksonville, the Seattle indicators were neverintended for use in evaluating alternative futures,and also were not tied to specific policy recommenda-tions. This is perhaps not surprising given the separa-tion between the non-profit sponsoring organizationand governmental agencies having the ability to carryout policy directives.

Neighborhood-specific indicators were created for fourdisadvantaged neighborhoods from 2003 to 2007based on existing neighborhood plans. Street-levelsurveys were conducted in ten neighborhoods; partici-pants collected data about community deficits andassets using handheld devices. Data included graffiti,litter, vacant buildings, and abandoned automobiles,as well as ‘friendly’ business districts, appropriatebuilding facades, and popular sidewalks. The result-ing indicators avoided sustainability language, in-stead focusing on quality of life in more conventionalterms.

A fourth update of Seattle’s regional indicators beganin 2005 and was completed in 2008. The indicatorsare published on-line at www.b-sustainable.org, anindependent offshoot of Sustainable Seattle. Whereavailable, data is now reported for four counties:King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap.

These newest indicators are organized around thir-teen sustainability goals, grouped into four “environ-ments”: natural, built, social, and personal. Each goalis now linked to strategies, initiatives, and actions; anonline platform allows members to suggest additionalactions.

As an example of the newest indicators, one “builtenvironment” goal is sustainable transportation, withan explicit statement that “The more we drive, thefurther we move away from sustainability.” The mainindicator is vehicle-miles-traveled per person per dayin each of the four counties from 1980 to present.


SALT LAKE CITY:ENVISION UTAH

In 1997, a civic organization called Coalition forUtah’s Future began to plan for urban growth in theSalt Lake City region, ten counties that now have apopulation of 2,700,000.

This effort, which became known as Envision Utah,did not set out to create a bottom-up quality-of-life orcommunity indicator program, as in Jacksonville orSeattle. Envision Utah’s initial purpose was to con-sider alternative growth scenarios (for instance, com-paring freeway and mass-transit corridors), thenrigorously assess the consequences of each scenarioagainst what the region’s people wanted for theirfuture. Indicators were a means to this end ratherthan an end in themselves.

Although the process was consultant-driven, it drewvery heavily on citizen input, beginning with a broadspectrum of influential citizens from business, gov-ernment, and public stakeholder groups, then extend-ing to several hundred workshops involving 6,000participants.

Envision Utah began by identifying four “GatewayValues” for the region to guide their process:

• Safe & Secure Environment• Personal & Community Enrichment• Personal Time & Opportunities• Financial Security

Each value was expanded into a series of “attributes.”For Safe & Secure Environment, the attributes were:crowding; crime; shared ideas, value and morals; andtraffic safety/accidents. For each attribute, specificmeasurable criteria were identified; for crowding, thecriteria included housing density, traffic congestion,population density, etc. Where adequate data is avail-able, these criteria became indicators.

A series of interactive public workshops allowed citi-zens to identify where they thought growth shouldoccur and what form it should take. These workshopsidentified several points of consensus and potentialdevelopment patterns, which were then refined intofour carefully mapped development scenarios for theten-county area:

• Scenario A was a continuation of the disperseddevelopment pattern of recent years, withmostly single-family homes on larger lots.

• Scenario B was the pattern proposed in localgovernment comprehensive plans. This patternis similar to Scenario A but not as widely dis-persed.

• Scenario C focused much of the new develop-ment into walkable communities with multiplehousing types and opportunities to work, shop,and play.

• Scenario D was similar to Scenario C but fo-cused more new growth (about half) into exist-ing urban areas.

The four development scenarios were then rated us-ing some of the previously identified criteria:

• Total land urbanized; farmland urbanized• Diversity of housing types• Density on vacant land; on redeveloped land• Average lot size• Walkable vs. non-walkable development• Population within 1/2 mile of open space• Population within 1/2 mile of light rail transit• Per-capita water use• Infrastructure costs• Air quality performance

The public was then surveyed to determine which ofthe four development scenarios they preferred. Sce-narios C and D were the overwhelming favorites.Envision Utah then created a composite QualityGrowth Scenario and rated it using the same criteria,where it scored slightly better than Scenario C.


AUSTIN: CENTRAL TEXASSUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS

ENVISION CENTRAL TEXASThe Envision Utah model has been replicated in re-cent years, perhaps most successfully in the CentralTexas. A separate but related indicators project hasbeen woven into planning for the Austin region.

The Central Texas Sustainability Indicators Projectpublished its initial indicators report in 2000 forHays, Travis, and Williamson Counties, centered onAustin. In 2009 the indicators report also includesBastrop, Caldwell, and Burnet Counties. Indicatorsare reported for these subjects:

• Public Safety • Economy• Education & Children • Environment• Social Equity • Health• Engagement • Land Use & Mobility

This indicators project has never advocated specificstrategies. It is intended as a diagnostic tool to helpCentral Texans as they consider the future of theirregion. Data is provided in a clear graphical format,often with trend data back 10 to 20 years. Seewww.centex-indicators.org

Envision Central Texas began in 2002 as a separatenon-profit visioning effort covering five counties:Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson,which now have a combined population of 1,700,000.

Envision Central Texas created four potential growthscenarios and evaluated them using a dozen numeri-cal criteria (none of which are Central Texas sustain-ability indicators). The scenarios were circulated forintense public review in a process that generated12,500 survey responses. These scenarios were syn-thesized in 2004 into a regional vision for future de-velopment in the region, which was scored using thesame numerical criteria.

One implementation tool for this effort was the 2009“Greenprint for Growth,” an intensive mapping pro-ject that identified the most important natural re-sources in four counties that should receive protec-tion. Future growth would presumably be directed toa subset of the land that has not received these desig-nations.

In 2010, the Central Texas Region was awarded asustainable communities planning grant from HUDthrough the same program that is funding theSeven50 plan for southeast Florida. This latest effortis being led by the Capital Area Council of Govern-ments (CAPCOG), a regional planning council. It willbuild on the preceding indicators project and theregional vision that had been formulated by EnvisionCentral Texas.

The 2035 MPO plan identified 37 activity centerswhere future development would integrate economicdevelopment with public transit and increased choicesin housing. Through the HUD grant, detailed plan-ning will now be conducted for four of these activitycenters, with alternative plans for each center beingevaluated with a new analytics tool that will forecasttheir performance on a wider variety of measuresthan previously possible, using indicators specific tothe CAPCOG region.

The Central Texas experience demonstrates howseemingly disparate regional planning efforts – com-munity indicators, regional visioning, open-spaceplanning, and coordinated land-use / transportationplanning – can be combined to formulate and begincarrying out a preferred regional vision.


MARYLAND SCENARIO PROJECT

The Maryland Scenario Project began in 2007 topromote regional decision-making. Authority overregional issues affecting Maryland is fragmentedamong two states, two MPOs, the District of Colum-bia, and a variety of other entities.

The Maryland Scenario Project was spearheaded bythe National Center for Smart Growth (NCSG) as anoutcome of large-scale “Reality Check” regional vi-sioning workshops conducted by NCSG, ThousandFriends of Maryland, and local chapters of the UrbanLand Institute.

Separate workshops were held for the WashingtonDC region and different regions in the state of Mary-land. Workshop participants were asked to spatiallyallocate the future population and employment thatwas projected by the Maryland Department of Plan-ning. The allocations were then summarized into anaggregate scenario for the state of Maryland, whichhas a population of 5,773,500.

The evolution of the Maryland Scenario Project in-cluded significant advancements beyond the typicalselection of a single preferred regional vision, whichcan deal only very conceptually with possibilities thatare beyond regional control. In reality, multipleuncertain futures will be affected by what can bebroadly broken into “controllable internal forces” and“uncontrollable external forces.”

Internal forces are factors that can be controlled bylocal or regional actions. An obvious example is re-gional transportation investment; a decision to investin high-capacity public transit will have very differenteffects on regional growth than investments in high-way expansions.

External forces are factors that cannot be controlledby local actions. For instance, rising fuel prices ornational economic recessions can have dramaticeffects on growth and local development patterns.

External forces can also affect internal forces.If federal and state governments decideagainst funding high-capacity transit systemsor against funding highway expansions, theregional choices to build such systems mayneed to be reevaluated.

Scenario planning has the potential to illus-trate multiple futures and formulate contin-gent plans that are based on outcomes thatcannot be known at the present. The origins ofscenario planning, in the corporate world,were primarily based on this potential, but ithas not been widely explored in regional vi-sioning due to its technical and theoreticalcomplexity.

A Maryland Scenario Advisory Group identi-fied forces driving the regions’s future growthand then crafted conceptual alternative sce-narios based on the interactions betweenthese internal and external forces and poten-tial local and state policies and investments.

The major “internal forces” were regionaltransportation investments that were alreadyproposed or had reasonable potential:

• A new outer beltway.• Extensions to the Metro rail system.• A new bridge across Chesapeake Bay.

The major “external factors” were:• Changes in energy prices.• Changes in general federal expenditures.

In order to analyze these additional variables,a very complex set of computer models wererequired, well beyond those normally avail-able for regional visioning exercises.


CHICAGO:GO TO 2040

The GO TO 2040 comprehensive regional plan formetropolitan Chicago covers seven counties and 284communities. The region has a combined populationof 8,430,000, about two-thirds of the Illinois’ popula-tion. This plan has been compared in ambition toDaniel Burnham and Edward Bennett’s 1909 Plan ofChicago.

GO TO 2040 was prepared by the Chicago Metropoli-tan Agency for Planning (CMAP), a regional planningorganization that integrates land use planning andtransportation planning. In 2007 CMAP succeededthe Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission(NIPC) and the Chicago Area Transportation Study,which had been the federally designated MetropolitanPlanning Organization.

The GO TO 2040 plan created regional indicators thatare being used to compare implementation strategiesand measure progress toward policy goals. The indi-cators are organized under the major themes identi-fied in the regional vision (with equity, sustainability,and innovation woven throughout):

• Safety • Housing • Education• Culture • Land Use • Transportation• Economy • Health • Environment• Civic Involvement • Coordinated Planning

Over 200 organizations and experts worked withCMAP on the indicators project. Data providers suchas the US Census Bureau and Illinois State Policeprovided data to analysis organizations including theCenter for Neighborhood Technology. A data ware-house was assembled containing over a thousand datatables to measure these indicators across differenttimes and regional geographies. Most indicators areprovided for at least two points in time and at re-gional, county, municipality, and/or census

tract level. The resulting information is available tothe public at www.metropulsechicago.org.

The MetroPulse website, operated jointly with theChicago Community Trust, allows users to choose atopic (like “Culture”) and an indicator (like “Artists inthe Workforce”) and then a dataset (like “Architects”);the site then generates a bar graph to display theresults. In this example, MetroPulse showed that ofthe seven counties in the metro Chicago area, CookCounty clearly employs the most architects, over sixthousand.

Twelve top-line indicators together measure andreport the overall condition of the region relative tothe plan’s stated goals.

A baseline report will be published in the immediatefuture to summarize the current state of the indica-tors. This report will be updated every two years toincorporate newer data and newly available data forpast periods.

Recommended actions in each section of the GO TO2040 plan refer directly to the indicators. Change-over-time monitoring of the indicators will be used totrack progress, but a more important use may be inanalyzing implementation strategies. Already, thescenarios evaluated during the GO TO 2040 processrevealed limitations in the capabilities of the MPOcomputer models to evaluate transportation alterna-tives relative to suggested policy strategies. A newmodeling approach will be used to overcome theselimitations.

An extensive public engagement process helped gen-erate indicators, goals, recommended actions, andplan priorities for GO TO 2040. An initial CommonGround planning process was led by NIPC beginningin 2000. A 2001 regional forum facilitated byAmericaSpeaks was attended by over 850 people, 275

of whom signed up to be part of working groups. Fivemain themes and 52 preliminary regional goals wereapproved in 2003. Workshops with elected officialsand their constituents from thirteen geographic clus-ters were used to create a land-use framework toimplement the regional goals. Using “Paint the Re-gion” software, participants identified places bestsuited for concentrated development, transportationcorridors, and natural spaces to be preserved. NIPCstaff then created a synthesis plan from these digitalmaps.

The formal GO TO 2040 regional vision process beganin 2007, building on the earlier Common Groundprocess. Draft vision statements for five topic areaswere formulated, aided by community conversationmeetings and an online public survey.

CMAP staff compiled the final plan from this input.In October 2010, CMAP’s governing boards unani-mously adopted GO TO 2040.


REGIONAL PLAN OF NEW YORK

Regional plans can measure interdependent elementsindividually and then layer them to help guide policydecisions. Useful indicators may include income lev-els, travel patterns, production and disposal locations,and flows of water, sewage, and energy.

In the early decades of the 20th century, a surge ofinterest in regional planning created many networksstill familiar today, including the Appalachian Trail

by Benton MacKaye in the 1910s, the WestchesterCounty Park System (from a 1931 version of the Re-gional Plan for New York and Its Environs), and the1909 Boston Metropolitan District Plan by FrederickLaw Olmsted and Charles Elliot.

The diagrams shown here are from the 1929 RegionalSurvey of New York and Its Environs, produced inmultiple volumes replete with trackable indicatorsand easily understood graphics. These diagrams de-pict waterfront pollution of the Hudson River and thedensity of passenger trains by route.

The Regional Survey diagrams reported trends andconditions and served as tools for analysis. Diagramswere accompanied by pages of supporting statistics.

Subjects of study varied in scale from individualbuilding to neighborhood public recreation spaces toflows of food and people.

These surveys remain landmarks of regional planningfor their scope, ambition, thoroughness, and useful-ness. They were presented in a manner that can beeasily understood almost a century later.


FLORIDA:AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE

In 2006, Thousand Friends of Florida commissionedthe University of Florida’s GeoPlan Center to projectthe amount of land that would be consumed statewideby development through 2060 using current develop-ment trends. Over half the state’s remaining naturaland agricultural lands would be urbanized by 2060;the current trend scenario is shown below.

The University of Central Florida’s MetropolitanCenter for Regional Studies commissioned an alterna-tive scenario that would accommodate the same popu-lation in a different manner (see alternative scenarioat the far right). Seven principles were established forthis alternative future:

1. Protect Florida’s essential land2. Invest in balanced transportation3. Plan for climate change4. Don’t waste land5. Design with nature6. Encourage compact development7. Rebuild to create great places

Each acre of Florida was ranked for its suitability fordevelopment as part of the alternative modeling pro-cess. Eight major factors for development suitabilitywere assessed using quantitative measures, listedhere with their associated weights:

1. Proximity to existing urban areas (29% weight)2. Transportation density (19%)3. Presence of wetlands (18%)4. Proximity to coast (11%)5. Presence of a DRI (10%)6. Proximity to major transportation (7%)7. Proximity to urban centers (> 30,000 population)

(7%)8. Proximity to inland open water (4%)

To accomplish the alternative scenario, major effortswould be required to conserve water, reduce poweruse, secure alternative sources of power, and reducefuel consumption.

Key actions would include acquisition of conservationeasements (and some fee simple purchases) for overeight million additional acres of agricultural andnatural lands, construction of a statewide high-speedrail system with connections to local rail transit sys-tems in large cities, no new major highways, andincreased densities for new development.

An intriguing outcome of the alternative scenario isthat the total costs would be less than the total cost ofbuild-out using the current trend of dispersed devel-opment. Florida could still welcoming many newresidents, including newborn children and relativeswho relocate from other states and countries, whilepreserving Florida’s heritage and quality of life.

Details on the alternative scenario can be obtainedfrom the complete report:www.spikowski.com/AnAlternativeFuture-FloridaInThe21stCentury_byPennDesign.pdf


FLORIDA:FLORIDA SCORECARD

In 2011 the Florida Chamber Foundation issued thelatest iteration of its evolving 20-year statewide stra-tegic plan, which is based on the Foundation’s SixPillars of Florida’s Future Economy:

• Talent Supply & Education• Innovation & Economic Development• Infrastructure & Growth Leadership• Business Climate & Competitiveness• Civic & Governance Systems• Quality of Life and Quality Places

To measure the current status and progress towardthe goals of the strategic plan, the Foundation createdthe “Florida Scorecard.” This effort expands on state-wide indicators that were prepared in 2007 for theCentury Commission for a Sustainable Florida.

The Florida Scorecard’s structure identifies issuesand ideas within each of the Six Pillars. The Score-card contains over 120 indicators; where data is avail-able, it is provided for the U.S. and for Florida’s 67counties and 20 Metropolitan Statistical Areas. It isavailable at this address:www.TheFloridaScorecard.com

The Florida Scorecard is a dynamic online tool thatincludes these useful features:

• Interactive graphs and maps to view multipleindicators and multiple geographic locations si-multaneously, displayed on the same graph.

• Customization that allows users to create theirown account and save their favorite queries andgraphs of interest.

Like the indicators created in Jacksonville and Seat-tle, the Florida Scorecard was never intended for usein evaluating alternative futures.

Adult Heart Disease Employment - Annual Kindergarten Readiness Science & Engineering WorkersAffordability of Higher Educ. Employment - Monthly Land Conservation State Liability System RankAg-Forest-Fishing Empl. Employment Cost Index Life Sciences - Empl. STEM TalentAg-Forest-Fishing Gross Energy Policy Rank Mgt. Services - Empl. Student Science PerformanceAverage Annual Wage Energy Consumption Management Services - Value Tax BurdenAviation and Aerospace - Empl. Entrepreneurial Activity Manufacturing - Empl. Technical Services - Empl.Baccalaureate Degrees Finance and Insurance - Empl. Manufacturing - Value Technical Services - ValueBridge Condition Finance and Insurance - Value Mining - Empl. Tourism/Entertainment - ValueBroadband Access Foreign Direct Investment Mining - Value Tourism/Entertainment - Empl.Building Permits Government Debt Nonprofit Organizations Trade - Employment & ValueBusiness Closings Government Empl. Patents Issued Trade ExportsBusiness Growth Government Performance Pension Funding Trade ImportsBusiness Relocations Grade 08 Math Performance Per Capita Income Transportation - Empl.Business Services - Empl. Grade 08 Reading Performance Personal Bankruptcy Transportation - ValueBusiness Services - Value Greenhouse Gas Emissions Personal Services - Value Unemployment RateBusiness Starts Gross Domestic Product Personal Services - Empl. Uninsured ResidentsBusiness Tax System Index Health Care - Empl. Population Unionized WorkforceCEO Ranking Health Care - Value Population - Urban Urban CongestionCharitable Contributions Health Insurance Costs Productivity Utilities - ValueCollege Attainment Health Status Prof. Services - Empl. Utilities - Empl.College Graduation High School Graduation Prof. Services - Value Vehicle Miles TraveledConstruction - Empl. High Wage Jobs Public Transit Use Venture CapitalConstruction - Value High-Tech Employment Growth Real Estate - Empl. VisitorsConsumer Confidence High-Tech Industry Growth Real Estate - Value Visitors ProjectionsCost of Doing Business Rank Home Affordability Rental Affordability VolunteerismCreative Industry Home Foreclosures Research and Development Voter ParticipationCrime Rate Home Ownership Retail Activity Waste GenerationEconomic Investment Return Infant Health Retail Services - Empl. Water ConsumptionEffective Business Tax Rate Inflation Retail Services - Value Workers' Compensation CostsEmergency Preparedness Information Technology - Empl. Right Track - Florida Working PoorEmployer Health Coverage Interstate Condition Science & Engineering Students Youth Obesity


BROWARD COUNTY:BROWARD BENCHMARKS

The Coordinating Council of Broward (CCB) producesthe “Broward Benchmarks” to establish a basis forassessing the progress of Broward County in address-ing its most urgent issues. About 300 indicators areorganized into these seven sections:

• Our Safety • Our Economy• Our Learning • Our Environment• Our Health • Our Government• Our Families & Communities

Data collection has two parts. A consultant has con-ducted quality-of-life surveys by telephone in 1997,2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. Secondary datafrom other sources is then collected by stakeholdergroups, which are major non-profit and governmentagencies.

The South Florida Regional Planning Council com-piles the document, which has been published for1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. TheCCB has published the “Selected Quality of Life Indi-cators” since 2002 to provide a more in-depth look at60 of the most significant indicators; seewww.sfrpc.com/ccb/tbbhome.htm

The Broward Benchmarks were never intended foruse in evaluating alternative futures, and are moreaccurately described as indicators than as bench-marks.

MARTIN COUNTY:COMMUNITY INDICATORS

Martin County’s community indicators project mea-sures the “environmental footprint” and sustain-ability of Martin County. County staff gathers datafor indicators on these subjects for the county’s strate-gic planning process:

• Built Environment • Safety • People• Natural Environment • Economic

These indicators communicate the status of conditionsto the public and are also used during the annualbudget process to identify and establish priorities forspending. The 2010 indicators were presented to thecounty commission on January 11, 2011; details areavailable from the county’s website. This programevolved from principles developed for a “2020 Visionfor a Sustainable Martin County.”

PALM BEACH COUNTY:PALM BEACH COUNTY COUNTS

Another indicator approach follows the “healthy com-munities” model. A local example is the 2010 publica-tion of “A Report of Health & Human Services inPalm Beach County, Based on Key Community Indica-tors.”

These indicators are now easily accessible from the“Palm Beach County Counts” website, which wasestablished collaboratively by local health and socialservice organizations. This website serves as a com-munity data portal for the general public and variousconstituencies engaged in community change andplanning; see www.PBCcounts.org. Data is oftenreported at sub-county levels such as census tractsand zip codes.

Although considerable data is provided on health andeducation issues, a much broader array of data is alsoavailable, organized into these “topic centers”:

• Health • Government & Politics• Economy • Public Safety• Education • Social Environment• Environment • Transportation


MOST PROMISING MODELSFOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA

Regional planning and visioning is experiencing arevival because certain growth-related problems aredifficult for individual local governments to address.This report describes recent noteworthy regionalvisioning efforts, with a focus on how they have usedindicators and benchmarks.

An important outcome of the Seven50 plan will be avivid description of a better southeast Florida in thefuture. This regional vision will not be a simple fore-cast; the vision will be a highly desirable outcomethat can be translated into an action plan with abroad mixture of public and private sector actions andinvestments, plus commitments by community groupsto align their activities to help achieve the vision.

The relationship between the spatial arrangementand intensity of land uses and transportation systemsis now generally accepted as the heart of regionalvisioning. A powerful new tool is available for evalu-ating the cost of excessive travel to families and toagencies that build and maintain roads. The H+TAffordability Index, which was designed to measurethe true affordability of housing by considering itslocation, graphically illustrates the transportationcosts of different locations for housing, customized foreach census tract.

Visioning should also include conservation of naturalresources, improved public health, and likely effectsof climate change, all of which are also fundamentalto future prosperity. Technical advances in geo-graphic information system (GIS) technology andFlorida’s tradition of comprehensive planning haveprovided a data-rich planning environment. A recentstate initiative has provided the best topographicdetail ever available for Florida’s coastal areas; thisdata was produced for hurricane evacuation planning,but will be invaluable when considering how climatechange will affect Southeast Florida.

Each of the regional plans and indicator projectsdescribed in this report provides lessons for SoutheastFlorida. No single project offers a model that encom-passes the entire scope of the Seven50 undertaking,but four are especially informative.

Alternative Future – Florida in the 21st CenturyThe Alternative Future report, described on page 8, isthe closest model in terms of the ambitious vision andcommon issues.

However, it differs in that it was sponsored by oneacademic institution (University of Central Florida)and conducted largely by another (University of Penn-sylvania). It was conducted with little public involve-ment and a small budget. Only one scenario wasformulated, and an implementation plan was not partof the project. Also, its use of indicators and wereconsiderably less rigorous than is desirable.

Envision UtahThe Envision Utah project for the Salt Lake Cityregion, as described on page 4, is closer in scope toSeven50. It was sponsored by a non-profit entity withstrong participation of local governments. Its ten-county region has 43.5% of the population of South-east Florida.

Four scenarios were generated and evaluated withconsiderable rigor. Public involvement was strong andsustained. The sponsoring entity, although withoutlegal authority, has continued to work toward imple-mentation through additional studies and actionstaken by local governments in the region.

Envision Central TexasThe Envision Central Texas project for the Austinregion, as described on page 5, expanded on the Envi-sion Utah model. It was also sponsored by a non-profit entity and it incorporated an earlier indicatorsproject for the same region. Its five-county region has27.5% of the population of Southeast Florida.

Four scenarios were generated and evaluated witheven greater sophistication than Envision Utah. Pub-lic involvement has been strong and sustained.

Maryland Scenarios ProjectThe Maryland Scenarios Project, described on page 6,included the most rigorous use of computer modelsand the most advanced use of classic scenario plan-ning techniques. Maryland’s 24 counties have 93.1%of the population of Southeast Florida.

The Maryland Scenario Project is the only projectthat has attempted to rigorously identify and analyzethe effects of “controllable internal forces” and “un-controllable external forces” on the regional economy.The Seven50 plan could use similar techniques toidentify a range of regional responses to two externalforces that were not considered in Maryland:

• In- or out-migration of people and capital betweenFlorida and the nation and internationally, acritical factor in the region’s economy.

• The effects of climate change on SoutheastFlorida’s shoreline, with planning responsesbased on various scenarios for the severity of theimpact.


SOUTHEAST FLORIDA INDICATORS

One of the next tasks in this project will be the selec-tions of specific indicators and benchmarks.

Indicators and benchmarks have evolved greatly inrecent years due to technological advances and expe-rience across the country. Indicators have become anessential tool in evaluating alternative scenarios forthe future of cities and regions.

Indicators are being used for many purposes beyondmunicipal planning; the indicators to be selected forthe Seven50 plan must be suitable for a regional planthat will ensure economic prosperity and the best-possible quality of life for Southeast Florida.

An initial series of “flagship sustainability indicators”has already been identified by the Office of Sustain-able Housing and Communities for all federallyfunded planning projects:

Transportation Choice:

Percentage of workers commuting via walking, biking, transit,and rideshare.

Housing Affordability:

Percentage of renter units and owner units affordable tohouseholds earning 80% of median family income.

Equitable Development:

Proportion of household income spent on housing andtransportation costs.

Percent of total population that reside in a low incomecensus tract AND reside more than one mile from a super-market/large grocery store.

Percent of population that reside within ½ mile of a park oropen space.

Economic Resilience:

Economic Diversification Index.

General local government debt-to-revenue ratio.

Growth through Reinvestment:

Net acres of agricultural and natural resource land lostannually to development per new resident.

Twenty additional indicators have been selected formore detailed evaluation:

Transportation and Other Infrastructure:

Vehicle-miles traveled (VMT)/trips by auto.

VMT/trips by biking and walking; and state and county/localroad lane miles.

Equity / Affordable Housing:

Affordable housing supply/demand ratios.

Percent of income spent on housing.

Percent living in deteriorated or overcrowded housing.

Economic Competitiveness:

Population in more/less developed areas.

Employment in more/less developed areas.

Income in more/less developed areas.

Existing Community Revitalization Efforts/Measures: Residential valuation in more/less developed areas.

Nonresidential valuation in more/less developed areas.

Intergovernmental Efficiency / Coordination:

Number of county employees (by jurisdiction) inplanning/land use.

Number of local employees (by jurisdiction) in planning/landuse.

Community Uniqueness and Livability:

Lane-miles of road (by jurisdiction).

Vacant land (by jurisdiction).

Agricultural/environmentally fragile land (by jurisdiction).

Existing Software Indicators:

INDEX indicators.

SERPM, GTCRPM, and Florida Statewide Model networkindicators.

Indicators should not be a haphazard collection ofstatistics without a sense of direction and purpose. Toavoid this pitfall, these questions will be asked abouteach potential indicator:

• Would this indicator be useful in assessingalternative scenarios that need to be evaluatedbefore selecting a preferred regional vision?

• Could this same indicator be used for purposesbeyond the immediate needs of this project?

• Can this indicator be stated clearly enoughthat it is unlikely to be misunderstood?

• Can the subject of the indicator ultimately beinfluenced by prospective policies (or is itinteresting enough in its own right as ameasure of where Southeast Florida has beenor will be headed)?

• Could this indicator actually measure thesuccess or failure of the plan over time?

• Would this indicator measure somethingimportant enough to continue tracking?

In addition, there are a variety of technical criteriathat must be examined before a final list of indicatorscan be presented for public scrutiny later this year:

• Is adequate data available from a reliablesource?

• Is the data available for past years so thatexisting trends can become apparent?

• Is this data likely to continue being available infuture years?

• Is the data available at a variety of usefulgeographic scales?

• If data is not available directly, can it bederived from other existing data?

• If none of the above, would the data bevaluable enough to begin collecting?


REFERENCES

JACKSONVILLEJacksonville Community Council, Inc. 2010. Quality

of Life Progress Report for Jacksonville andNortheast Florida: www.jcci.org/indicators

Swain, David, and Hollar, Daniel. 2003. “Measuringprogress: community indicators and the quality oflife,” in International Journal of PublicAdministration 26(7): 789-814.

Warner, J. Benjamin, “The Jacksonville, Florida,Experience,” in Sirgy, M. Joseph, Don R. Rahtz,and David Swain. 2006. Community quality-of-lifeindicators: best cases II. Dordrecht: Springer.

SEATTLEHolden, Meg, “Sustainable Seattle: The Case of the

Prototype Sustainability Indicators Project,“ inSirgy, M. Joseph, Don R. Rahtz, and David Swain.2006. Community quality-of-life indicators: bestcases II. Dordrecht: Springer.

Sustainable Seattle: www.sustainableseattle.org/programs/regional-indicators

SALT LAKE CITYCalthorpe, Peter, and William B. Fulton. 2001. The

Regional City: planning for the end of sprawl.Washington, DC: Island Press.

Envision Utah. undated. The history of EnvisionUtah: www.envisionutah.org/historyenvisonutahv5p1.pdf

Knapp, Gerrit-Jan, and Lewis, Rebecca. 2011.“Regional Planning for Sustainability andHegemony of Metropolitan Regionalism,” inSeltzer, Ethan, and Carbonell, Armando: Regionalplanning in America: practice and prospect.Cambridge, Mass: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

NEW YORKScott, Mel. American City Planning Since 1890. 1969.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

AUSTINEnvision Central Texas. 2003. Envision Central Texas

Briefing Packet: www.content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/FHWA&CISOPTR =1421#metajump

Envision Central Texas. 2004. A vision for CentralTexas: www.envisioncentraltexas.org/resources/ECT_visiondoc.pdf

Central Texas Sustainability Indicators Project. 2010.2009 Data Report: www.centex-indicators.org/annual_rept.html

MARYLANDChakraborty, Arnab et al., “Robust Plans and

Contingent Plans: Scenario Planning for anUncertain World,” in Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 77(3): 251-266.

CHICAGOChicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. 2010.

GoTo2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan: www.cmap.illinois.gov/2040/main

MetroPulse: www.metropulsechicago.org

FLORIDAUniversity of Pennsylvania, and University of Central

Florida. 2007. An alternative future Florida in the21st century 2020 2040 2060. Philadelphia:PennDesign Florida Studio 2007, University ofPennsylvania. www.spikowski.com/AnAlternativeFuture-FloridaInThe21stCentury_byPennDesign.pdf

Florida Scorecard: www.TheFloridaScorecard.com

BROWARD COUNTYCoordinating Council of Broward. 2009. The Broward

Benchmarks 2008: Select Quality of Life Indicators.South Florida Regional Planning Council:www.sfrpc.com/ccb/tbbhome.htm

PALM BEACH COUNTYPalm Beach County Counts: www.PBCcounts.org.

MARTIN COUNTYIndicators Presentation to Martin County Board of

Commissioners on January 11, 2011: www.martin.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=18&clip_id=1354&meta_id=68584

INDICATORS AND BENCHMARKSDluhy, Milan, and Swartz, Nicholas. 2006.

“Connecting Knowledge and Policy: The Promise ofCommunity Indicators in the United States,” inSocial Indicators Research 79: 1–23.

Innes, Judith E., and Booher, David E. 2000.“Indicators for Sustainable Communities: AStrategy Building on Complexity Theory andDistributed Intelligence,” in Planning Theory &Practice, Vol. 1, No. 2, 173–186.

Phillips, Rhonda. 2003. Community indicators.Chicago: American Planning Association.

Phillips, Rhonda. 2005. Community indicatorsmeasuring systems. England: Ashgate.

Wong, Cecilia. 2006. Indicators for urban andregional planning: the interplay of policy andmethods. London and New York: Routledge.

REGIONAL VISIONING AND SCENARIOSSeltzer, Ethan, and Carbonell, Armando. 2011.

Regional planning in America: practice andprospect. Cambridge, Mass: Lincoln Institute ofLand Policy.

Holway, Jim. 2012. Opening access to scenarioplanning tools. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Instituteof Land Policy. www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2027_1352_Opening Access to Scenario Planning Tools.pdf

Hopkins, Lewis D., and Marisa Zapata. 2007.Engaging the future: forecasts, scenarios, plans,and projects. Cambridge, Mass: Lincoln Institute ofLand Policy.
