Results

The Happiness Index results are a result of a national random sampling providing the average scores for people in the United States.   The scores are out of 100. If you score a 67 in Material Wellbeing when you take the survey, your score will come out as 50, as you self assess your material wellbeing at the average of those in the U.S.

The purpose of the objective indicators are to provide a whole picture of the well being of our area along the 10 domains of happiness.  As with the survey, the objective indicators are relevant to any city or region. This set of objective indicators complements survey results to provide a comprehensive assessment of the well being of a region. We recognize the indicators are not perfect and plan to review the selection as data becomes more available, allowing for better indicators.

Material Well-being

  • Poverty Rate
  • County Gross Domestic Product

Environmental Quality

  • Green House Gas Emissions
  • Air Quality (VOC emissions recorded in National Inventory Emissions Data)
  • Solid Waste

Governance

  • Voter turnout as a percent of eligible voters
  • Tax fairness: Income tax and consumption taxes: percent of total taxes paid by income levels

Education

  • High School graduation rates
  • Government spending on early education: K-8

Community Vitality

  • Volunteer rates
  • Violent Crime rates

Cultural Vitality

  • Multi-racial neighborhoods (gentrification, social cohesion, inclusiveness)
  • Public funding of arts and sports

Psychological Health

  • Domestic Violence Rates (child and spouse)
  • Rates of mental illness per 1000 populations (issue of undiagnosed, of changes of definition in DSM)

Human Health

  • Health Index from Mapping of America ( life expectancy, infant mortality and people without health insurance)
  • Obesity

Time Balance

  • Commute time (Mean Commute Time)
  • Work Time (extreme working hours, 50 a week or over, average annual hours of work, vacation days)

Work Experience

  • Unemployment Rate
  • Average Compensation


Objective Indicator Methodology
The objective indicator team began with our fourth set of regional sustainability indicators to collect indicators, then looked at other local and non-local indicator projects. We organized the indicators along the domains using the criteria of fit and data availability. We used a two pronged approach to narrow the indicators for each domain: Crowd sourcing  with non-experts and a relational survey of experts. Crowd sourcing was done reaching out to the non-expert and asking them to rate each indicator for fit to the domain using High, Medium or Low scores.  A relational survey was conduced to gauge the affinity of the indicators within a domain with the other domains as well as aspects of sustainability, well-being and compassion not explicit in the 9 domains.  Experts previously engaged in Sustainable Seattle and other organizations indicator work were surveyed.

The team then narrowed the indicators down to 2 main indicators for each domain with 5-7 other indicators. A technical review committee was formed. They were chosen for their expertise in one of the 9 domains.  They were surveyed to determine whether the indicators fit the criteria and were the right indicator to show the whole picture when coupled with survey results. The team made the final selection of indicators based on technical review committee responses. The team collected data.

Our criteria for indicators selection was:

  • o Replicable – useful for any city
  • o Reliable – creation & data gathering
  • o Consistent –year to year & form (apples to apples)
  • o Timely – data for the current time period
  • o Understandable – for all people
  • o Relevant – reflect reality of users
  • o Scalable- small-scale analysis
  • o Useful – can you do something? can policy be changed? can it guide planners?
  • o Simple – easy to use
  • o Honest – about the issue and the purpose

Objective Indicator Technical Review Committee:

A review of objective indicators by experts representing the 9 domains of happiness is currently underway. If you would like to be considered for  the technical review committee, please emailhappy@sustainableseattle.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Lance Bennett
Olof Palme Visiting Chair
Department of Political Science, Stockholm University
Professor of Political Science and
Ruddick C. Lawrence Professor of Communication
University of Washington, Seattle, USA
Director, Center for Communication & Civic Engagement

Karin de Weille
New World Habits Exchange Founder

Abigail Echo-Hawk
Seattle Woman’s Commissioner
University of Washington Tribal Liaison for the Institute for Translational Health Sciences

Tim Jones
Instructor of Political Science and International Studies at Bellevue College

Barbara Lawrence-Piecuch M.B.A.
Suquamish Tribe
Child Support Enforcement
Program Assistant/Case Manager

Lang Marsh
EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Council.
Former Director of the Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality.
Former Commissioner and Executive Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Former director of the Government Law Center at Albany Law School

Marti
Next Generation Consulting

Donald Miller
Professor of College of Built Environments, University of Washington
Chair of the Ninth International Symposium on Urban Planning and Environment at Sun Yat-Sen University

Rebecca Ryan
Next Generation Consulting

Vicki Robin
Vicki Robin & Associates

Alex Suarez Ph.D., M.S.C.P.
Antioch University Seattle

Objective Indicator Team:

Ken Cousins, PhD
Mario Sanchez
Jim Cory
Andrew Cozin
Tim Flynn
Laura Musikanski
John de Graaf
Eldan Goldenberg,