launch of the social progress index for bogotá
TRANSCRIPT
SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX BOGOTAMatthew Bishop, 23 November, 2015
2
THE SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX
3
THE CALL FOR A NEW MEASUREMENT AGENDA
“When making empirical comparisons of living standard, the temptation to use such aggregate, commodity-based measures as the GNP or the GDP is strong, partly because these measures seem nicely aggregated and conveniently complete. Everything, it may appear, counts in the GNP. The question, of course, is everything in what space? Commodities, yes; functioning and living conditions, possibly not at all.”- Amartya Sen, The Standard of Living, p.33 (1987)
4
SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX: DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Outcomes – not inputs
Actionability
Relevant to all countries
Exclusively social and environmental indicators
SPI’S WORKING DEFINITION OF SOCIAL PROGRESS
Social progress is the capacity of a society to meet the basic human needs of its citizens, establish the building blocks that allow citizens and communities to enhance and sustain the quality of their lives, and create the conditions for all individuals to reach their full potential.
6
THE SOCIAL PROGRESS FRAMEWORK
SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX FRAMEWORK INDICATORS 2015
7
Basic Human Needs Opportunity
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care Undernourishment Depth of food deficit Maternal mortality rate Child mortality rate Deaths from infectious diseases
Water and Sanitation Access to piped water Rural access to improved water source Access to improved sanitation facilities
Shelter Availability of affordable housing Access to electricity Quality of electricity supply Indoor air pollution attributable deaths
Personal Safety Homicide rate Level of violent crime Perceived criminality Political terror Traffic deaths
Access to Basic Knowledge Adult literacy rate Primary school enrollment Lower secondary school enrollment Upper secondary school enrollment Gender parity in secondary enrollment
Access to Information and Communications Mobile telephone subscriptions Internet users Press Freedom Index
Health and Wellness Life expectancy Premature deaths from non-
communicable diseases Obesity rate Outdoor air pollution attributable deaths Suicide rate
Ecosystem Sustainability Greenhouse gas emissions Water withdrawals as a percent of
resources Biodiversity and habitat
Personal Rights Political rights Freedom of speech Freedom of assembly/association Freedom of movement Private property rights
Personal Freedom and Choice Freedom over life choices Freedom of religion Early marriage Satisfied demand for contraception Corruption
Tolerance and Inclusion Tolerance for immigrants Tolerance for homosexuals Discrimination and violence against minorities Religious tolerance Community safety net
Access to Advanced Education Years of tertiary schooling Women’s average years in school Inequality in the attainment of education Globally ranked universities
Social Progress Index
Foundations of Wellbeing
7
8
IF THE WORLD WERE A COUNTRY, IT WOULD RANK 84TH. IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENTS IN MDG-RELATED COMPONENTS. KEY CHALLENGES IN THE OPPORTUNITY DIMENSION AND ECOSYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY
9
SOCIAL PROGRESS DOES INCREASE WITH GDP PER CAPITA BUT IT IS NOT THE WHOLE STORY
KWT
CRI
BRA
ZAF
IND
MWI
CAF
NORUSA
FRA
NZLCANGBR
RUS
CHN
COL
10
SOCIAL PROGRESS MAP 2015
The Latin American Social Progress Ranking allows to identify three groups of countries
Group 1: Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica, Argentina, Panama, Brazil, Jamaica with a SPI score higher than 70. They present relatively lower wellbeing gaps.
Group 2: Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Perú, Paraguay with a SPI score higher than 65 have “medium-high” levels of social progress and intermediate wellbeing gaps.
Grupo 3: El Salvador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Dominican Rep., Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Cuba, Guyana with an SPI score higher than 60 and higher wellbeing gaps.
LATIN AMERICA OUTPERFORM ALL OTHER REGIONS IN THE WORLD, EXCEPT FOR OCEANIA, EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA
12
13
SOCIAL PROGRESS IN COLOMBIAN CITIES
14
10 Cities of Colombia: Bogotá
Barranquilla Bucaramanga
Cali Cartagena
Ibagué Manizales Medellín Pereira
ValleduparTotal Population: 17,146,506
Partners: Red Colombiana Ciudades Como Vamos, Fundación Corona, Compartamos con Colombia, Deloitte, AVINA.
SPI INTER-CITIES: COLOMBIA
15
BOGOTA RANKS 4TH AMONG THE 10 MOST IMPORTANT COLOMBIAN CITIES
• Manizales, the fourth richest city by income per capita, is the social progress top performer among ten cities. “Tolerance and Inclusion” and “Access to Advanced Education” are the key drivers behind the performance of Manizales.
• An important and persistent gap in social progress separates the cities of the Andean region (70) from the cities of the Pacific and Caribbean coasts (55).
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Manizales 63.91 63.12 65.44 67.67 71.22 75.52Bucaramanga 63.22 64.26 64.24 65.73 67.08 72.95Bogotá 63.02 64.04 65.13 67.64 71.17 70.33Pereira 58.44 59.49 63.21 61.08 61.25 66.63Medellín 57.92 60.41 63.90 67.24 69.73 72.58Ibagué 52.58 53.07 51.79 50.54 57.95 61.64Barranquilla 51.67 51.28 58.33 57.03 57.62 60.07Valledupar 49.01 49.37 50.79 52.42 55.34 52.17Cali 45.66 48.73 50.02 48.95 54.66 54.27Cartagena 42.67 44.30 49.59 48.97 50.61 53.61
SPI Score
SOCIAL PROGRESS TRENDS IN COLOMBIAN CITIES 2009-2014
• Bogota increased its score by 10% moving from “medium-low” to “medium-high” social progress levels. In 2013, Bogotá was the top performer city.
• Medellin (3) and Cartagena (9) increased their scores by 25%. Medellin managed to catch up the group of top performing cities. Cartagena moved away from the bottom.
• The gap between Andean cities and Coastal cities sharply increased from 10 social progress points in 2011 to 15 social progress points in 2014.
17
WHICH COMPONENT SCORES REGISTERED THE HIGHEST CHANGES?
Colombian cities improved in access to information and communications (+150%), access to higher education (+75%) and personal safety (+25%). The Ecosystem
sustainability score decreased by -8% from 2009 to 2014.
18
19
SOCIAL PROGRESS IN BOGOTA
• Bogota, the city with the highest average income of the country only ranks fourth in social progress. With an SPI of 70.3 in 2014, Bogota was surpassed by Bucaramanga, Medellin and Manizales, after temporarily occupying first place in 2013, after 5 years of steady increases.
• Bogota is the leading city in Access to Basic Medical Care, Health and Wellness and Access to basic Education, and ranks second in Access to Information and Communications.
• The city also holds a leading position in Access to Advanced Education and Personal Safety.
• The social progress agenda for Bogota should focus on the dimension of Opportunities. It ranks 8th in “Personal Rights” and ranks 9th in “Tolerance and Inclusion”.
• The city should strengthen the exercise of civil rights of its citizens (urban mobility, political participation, participation in social organizations) and foster coexistence among different groups of people, particularly with regard to the disabled, displaced and demobilized.
20
A LOCALITY-LEVEL INDEX FOR BOGOTA
21
BOGOTA CITY: BACKGROUND
• Bogotá has 7’776,850 inhabitants (2014); 99.8% lives in the urban area.
• Bogota accounts for 16% of the total population of Colombia, and 21% of its urban population.
• The urban area of Bogotá is divided into 19 localities, which have an average of 408.971 residents each.
• The unit of analysis for the Social Progress Index are the 19 localities of the city.
• The smallest locality is La Candelaria (historical downtown) with nearly of 25,000 residents. The biggest, Suba (in the north) with more than 1’144.000
INDICATORS COLOR-CODED BY LEVEL OF MATCHING WITH THE 2015 GLOBAL FRAMEWORK Same indicator
Close definitiion Best available proxy New indicator
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care Low birthweigthUndernutrition in childrenMaternal mortality rateDeaths from infectious diseasesHIV Prevalence rateChild mortality rate
Water and SanitationAccess to piped waterAccess to improved sanitation facilities (sewerage)Storm drain
Shelter and Public ServicesQualitative housing deficitQuantitative housing deficitHousing satisfactionNeighborhood satisfaction
Personal SafetyPersonal Injury rateHomicide rateTraffic deaths Tasa de delitos sexuales (Medicina Legal)
Access to Basic Knowledge Literacy ratePrimary school enrollmentUpper secondary school enrollmentQuality of education in upper secondary school
Access to Information and Communications Internet usersMobile telephone usersPC users
Health and WellnessLife expectancySuicide rate Premature deaths from non-communicable diseases Physical activity rate
Ecosystem SustainabilityNumber of trees per personAvailability of public spaceAmount of recycled materialAlternative transportation
Personal Rights Freedom of movementPrivate property rightsFreedom of assembly/associationPolitical rights
Personal Freedom and Choice Teen pregnancy Adults who feel good in your areaAvailability of parks
Tolerance and Inclusion Satisfaction with neighborly relationsFeeling of discriminationSense of belongingIntra-family disputesSocial tolerance
Access to Advanced Education Quality of math education in High SchoolQuality of language education in High SchoolAdults with incomplete higher educationAdults with undergraduate degree
Basic Human Needs Opportunities
SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX
Foundations of Wellbeing
SPI Bogota uses 47 indicators. 24 new indicators have been added because of better available data (shelter, quality of education) and context relevance (HIV prevalence rate,
personal injury rate). It uses very robust survey data collected at the locality level.
SPI BOGOTA: DATA SOURCES
THE SPI BOGOTA USES 47 INDICATORS FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES
23
• 43% BOGOTA GOVERNMENT ENTITIES:• Secretaría de Salud• Empresa de Acueducto y Alcantarillado de
Bogotá• Secretaría de Educación• Secretaría de Movilidad• Secretaría de Planeación• Jardín botánico de Bogotá• UAESP• DADEP• IDRD
• 13% COLOMBIAN GOVERNMENT ENTITIES:• Ministerio de Educación• Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal• Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil
• 36% BIENNIAL SURVEY OF CULTURES
• 9% MULTIPURPUSE SURVEY OF BOGOTA
Bogota gov-erment enti-
ties43%
Colombian gov-erment entities
13%
Biennial Sur-vey of cultures
36%
Multipurpose Survey
9%
DATA SOURCES BY DIMENSION(NUMBER OF INDICATORS)
24
Total
Human Basic Needs
Foundations of Wellbeing
oportunities
20
10
8
2
6
2
1
3
17
2
4
11
4
2
2
Bogota goverment entities Colombian goverment Entities
Biennial Survey of cultures Multipurpose Survey
The biennial survey of cultures, published by the Observatory of Culture and which explores citizen behavior, political culture and cultural practices of the citizens of Bogota, is a groundbreaking tool. It provides information at the locality level using 17,000 surveys. It feeds 17 indicators into the SPI Bogota, of which 11 in the Opportunity dimension. These kind of survey should be replicated globally
25
SOCIAL PROGRESS IN THE LOCALITIES OF BOGOTA
SOCIAL PROGRESS RANKING 2014 FOR THE LOCALITIES OF BOGOTA
26
Locality Zone SPI 2014 LevelTeusaquillo North 79.97
Puente Aranda West 76.97Engativá West 76.59
Chapinero North 76.42Usaquén North 75.38
Suba North 74.80Barrios Unidos North 74.22
Fontibón West 72.76Kennedy West 71.36
Antonio Nariño South 69.97Tunjuelito South 67.20
Bosa West 67.05San Cristóbal South 66.15
Rafael Uribe Uribe South 66.01Usme South 65.35
La Candelaria Center 61.82Los Mártires Center 60.52
Ciudad Bolívar South 60.13Santa Fe Center 60.07
High
Medium-High
Medium-Low
Very Low Medium Very High45
4 8 5 0 5 3 5 5 5 8 6 0 6 365
6 8 7 0 7 3 7 5 7 8 8 0 8 385
27
INCOME PER CAPITA AND SOCIAL PROGRESS (2011)
As in the Global model and the Colombian inter-cities model there is a non-linear relation between social progress and income per capita. Puente Aranda and Engativá, localities in the West, are top overperformers.La Candelaria and Los Martires, localities in the City Centre are top underperformers. Chapinero, the richest locality in the North, is also an underperformer.
28
INCOME POVERTY AND SOCIAL PROGRESS (2011)As in the Global model there is a strong and negative correlation between Social Progress Index and poverty. But income poverty is higher in Ciudad Bolivar (29%), Usme (29%) and San Cristobal (23%), all southern localities, which are not necessarily the worst ranked (18th, 15th, 13th respectively.
29
MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY AND SOCIAL PROGRESS (2011) There is also a strong and negative correlation between Social Progress Index and multidimensional poverty. But none of those measures (income per capita, income poverty nor multidimensional poverty shows the increasingly difficult situation of localities in the City Centre (Santa Fe, La Candelaria and Los Martires)
Basic Human Needs Opportunities
Social Progress index
Foundations of Wellbeing
Very Low Medium Very High45
4 8 5 0 5 3 5 5 5 8 6 0 6 365
6 8 7 0 7 3 7 5 7 8 8 0 8 385
SCORES BY DIMENSION
Locality 2009 2014*Puente Aranda 90.83 90.57Engativá 89.86 89.74Chapinero 88.84 87.09Usaquén 87.44 89.54Barrios Unidos 87.31 91.16Fontibón 86.47 90.93Teusaquillo 85.07 89.17Suba 84.35 87.48La Candelaria 83.87 78.47Kennedy 83.43 88.01Tunjuelito 82.02 84.79Antonio Nariño 81.75 81.73Bosa 80.02 84.24San Cristóbal 79.31 83.80Rafael Uribe Uribe 79.10 82.83Santa Fe 77.30 72.83Los Mártires 74.62 71.45Usme 73.96 82.79Ciudad Bolívar 46.79 74.75
Basic Human Needs Score
TRENDS IN BASIC HUMAN NEEDSo The simple average score of the city in
Basic Human Needs is 84.
o 9 out of 10 localities in the North and West of the city have “very high” social progress scores in the BHN dimension (>85).
o 6 out of 9 localities in the South and Centre of the city have “high” social progress scores in the BHN dimension (>75).
o Ciudad Bolivar has increased its BHN score by 60% and Usme by 12% in six years. Big improvements have been made in water and sanitation, personal safety and shelter in those southern localities.
o The localities in the City Centre have seen an important decline in their BHN scores mainly because of a deteriorated situation in personal safety (-35% on average). Additionally, La Candelaria has worsened in basic medical care, although improved in shelter, just the opposite of Santa Fe.
Locality 2009 2014*Teusaquillo 84.33 88.30Chapinero 79.49 81.57Usaquén 76.60 78.28Puente Aranda 72.59 76.75Suba 71.44 77.43Barrios Unidos 71.30 72.96Antonio Nariño 70.71 71.47Engativá 69.56 76.34Fontibón 67.41 69.37La Candelaria 64.69 57.69Tunjuelito 64.00 68.56Rafael Uribe Uribe 61.80 64.13Usme 60.91 64.52Santa Fe 60.46 59.07Los Mártires 59.94 68.92Kennedy 59.87 70.16Bosa 57.36 64.53San Cristóbal 52.08 61.52Ciudad Bolívar 47.99 56.49
Foundations of Wellbeing Score
TRENDS IN FOUNDATIONS OF WELLBEING
o The simple average score of the city in Foundations of Wellbeing is 70.
o Only 1 locality, Teusaquillo, has a “very high” social progress score in the FW dimension (>85), due to a sharp increase in health & wellness (+27%), alongside 10 other localities.
o All the localities have improved in FW, except from Santa Fe (-2%) and La Candelaria (-11%), in this latter case because of a dramatic decline in Health &Wellness (-37%).
o Sharp increase in access to information and communications (+19%), especially in Bosa, Kennedy, Los Martires and Ciudad Bolivar (+38% on average).
o In Ecosystem Sustainability, 10 localities have scores lower than 55, i.e. low levels of social progress.
Locality 2009 2014*Engativá 61.24 63.69Teusaquillo 58.76 62.44Puente Aranda 58.48 63.57Usaquén 57.72 58.32Fontibón 57.34 57.98Chapinero 56.95 60.60Barrios Unidos 56.62 58.53Kennedy 53.98 55.91Suba 52.31 59.48Antonio Nariño 51.05 56.72Rafael Uribe Uribe 48.78 51.07San Cristóbal 47.13 53.12Usme 46.43 48.75Tunjuelito 44.63 48.26Bosa 43.57 52.38Santa Fe 43.37 48.30La Candelaria 42.35 49.28Ciudad Bolívar 39.02 49.14Los Mártires 35.81 41.19
Opportunities Score
TRENDS IN OPPORTUNITYo The simple average score of the city in
Opportunity is 55.
o Northern and Western localities have “medium-low” scores (<65) while Southern and Central localities have “low” scores (<55) in the Op dimension.
o All the localities have registered an important increase in access to advanced education (+35% on average), mainly because of the indicators used to assess quality of education.
o Personal Rigths and Tolerance and Inclusion represent the main challenges facing any locality in Bogota. All 19 localities score lower than 55 in both components, mainly because of poor civic engagement, high levels of dissatisfaction with the transport system and low degrees of social cohesion.
A MOVE TOWARDS GREATER SOCIAL INCLUSION IN BOGOTA 2009-2014
34
Very Low Medium Very High45
4 8 5 0 5 3 5 5 5 8 6 0 6 365
6 8 7 0 7 3 7 5 7 8 8 0 8 385
SPI-2009 SPI-2011 SPI-2013 SPI-2014*
Locality 2009 2011 2013 2014*Teusaquillo 76.05 77.58 77.76 79.97Chapinero 75.09 75.15 74.43 76.42Puente Aranda 73.97 73.49 76.32 76.97Usaquén 73.92 75.45 74.94 75.38Engativá 73.55 73.56 75.93 76.59Barrios Unidos 71.74 71.70 71.49 74.22Fontibón 70.40 72.39 71.27 72.76Suba 69.36 73.58 73.70 74.80Antonio Nariño 67.83 70.31 68.17 69.97Kennedy 65.76 67.17 69.99 71.36La Candelaria 63.63 59.08 59.82 61.82Tunjuelito 63.55 63.45 66.42 67.20Rafael Uribe Uribe 63.23 64.14 63.91 66.01Usme 60.43 59.91 63.31 65.35Santa Fe 60.38 60.54 58.84 60.07Bosa 60.32 62.83 65.64 67.05San Cristóbal 59.51 58.89 65.09 66.15Los Mártires 56.79 57.36 61.18 60.52Ciudad Bolívar 44.60 53.03 58.94 60.13
Social Progress Index Score • From 2009 to 2014, the localities of Bogota have witnessed an average increase of 6,6% in their social progress scores.
• Localities with lower
levels of social progress in 2009 have systematically shown the higher increases in the last six years.
• The social progress gap between the first and the last locality has narrowed from 31 social progress points to 20 social progress points.
SPI 2009 SPI 2014
Very Low Medium Very High45
4 8 5 0 5 3 5 5 5 8 6 0 6 365
6 8 7 0 7 3 7 5 7 8 8 0 8 385
• Most of the localities of the West are social progress overperformers. With a per capita income 2,5 times lower than average Northern districts, they present relatively similar SPI scores.
• The South has witnessed a sharp increase in social progress (+10%), especially Ciudad Bolivar (+35%). It has been explicitly targeted by different social policies and subsidies.
• The City Centre has gone through a process of deterioration. Santa Fe (-2,9%) and La Candelaria (-0,5%) are the two localities that presented a decline in their SPI score.
37
SPACIAL REPRESENTATIONOF THE SPI BOGOTA
• The Cartogram is useful tool to observe disparities in the territory.
• If the polygons are deformed so weighted by the values of the IPS, we obtain a new map with the "geography of the data" and can see better where are the highest and lowest scores.
• The North and West zones of the city are much better off in social progress than the South and the City Centre.
• The gap has narrowed in the last six years, but still much need to be done. Scorecards are a useful tool to identify priorities for action.
Scale Map Deformed Map (Cartogram)
www.socialprogressimperative.org
Strengths and weaknesses are relative to 15 countries of similar GDP: Relative Strength n/a – no data availableNeutral
Relative Weakness
Income per capita(2011)-rank: 1/19
CHAPINERO (North of the City)137,000 inhabitants
1140 U$D/pc; 9% poverty rate
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 19 Localities of Bogota
SPI Bogota-Rank (2013): 5/19SPI Bogota-Score: 74.4
Basic Human Needs Score Rank87,22 Foundations of Wellbeing Score Rank
78,02 Opportunities Score Rank58,04
87,2 987,22
78,0 378,02
58,0 458,04
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care 81,5 1681,45
Access to Basic Knowledge 84,5 984,55
Personal Rights 40,8 740,84
Low birthweigth-0,13
Literacy rate-0,03
Freedom of movement0,30
Undernutrition in children-0,04
Primary school enrollment0,96
Private property rights0,49
Maternal mortality rate-16,60
Upper secondary school enrollment0,79
Freedom of assembly/association0,09
Deaths from infectious diseases-10,04
Quality of education in upper secondary school
295,28
Political rights0,50
HIV Prevalence rate-21,80
Child mortality rate-10,60
Water and Sanitation 99,3 799,34
Access to Information and Communications 78,4 5
78,37Personal Freedom and Choice 86,1 2
86,09
Access to piped water1,00
Internet users0,51
Teen pregnancy -1,54
Access to improved sanitation facilities (sewerage)
0,99
Mobile telephone users0,86
Adults who feel good in your area0,94
Storm drain1,00
PC users0,52
Availability of parks63,90
Shelter and Public Services 94,2 194,20
Health and Wellness 59,1 1959,08
Tolerance and Inclusion 47,3 447,32
Qualitative housing deficit-0,09
Life expectancy73,50
Satisfaction with neighborly relations0,72
Quantitative housing deficit-0,07
Suicide rate -2,90
Feeling of discrimination-0,15
Housing saitsfaction0,94
Premature deaths from non-communicable diseases
-24,50
Sense of belonging0,87
Neighborhood satisfaction0,91
Physical activity rate0,19
Intra-family disputes-0,25
Social tolerance-0,25
Personal Safety 73,9 1573,91
Ecosystem Sustainability 90,1 190,09
Access to Advanced Education 57,9 1157,93
Personal Injury rate-171,37
Number of trees per person3,00
Quality of math education in High School 44,09
Homicide rate-17,90
Availability of public space3,00
Quality of language education in High School
47,49
Traffic deaths-4,90
Amount of recycled material3,92
Adults with incomplete higher education0,06
Alternative transportation-0,46
Adults with undergraduate degree0,18
www.socialprogressimperative.org
Strengths and weaknesses are relative to 15 countries of similar GDP: Relative Strength n/a – no data availableNeutral
Relative Weakness
Income per capita(2011)-rank: 8/19
SANTA FÉ (City Centre)110,000 inhabitants
286 U$D/pc; 23% poverty rate
Strengths and Weaknesses are relative to 19 Localities of Bogota
SPI Bogota-Rank (2013): 19/19SPI Bogota-Score: 58.8
Basic Human Needs Score Rank72,33 Foundations of Wellbeing Score Rank
61,54 Opportunities Score Rank42,65
72,3 1972,33
61,5 1761,54
42,6 1742,65
Nutrition and Basic Medical Care 74,5 1974,53
Access to Basic Knowledge 61,3 1861,29
Personal Rights 20,7 1920,70
Low birthweigth-0,14
Literacy rate-0,01
Freedom of movement0,38
Undernutrition in children-0,05
Primary school enrollment1,00
Private property rights0,43
Maternal mortality rate0,00
Upper secondary school enrollment1,00
Freedom of assembly/association0,05
Deaths from infectious diseases-17,27
Quality of education in upper secondary school
324,82
Political rights0,48
HIV Prevalence rate-29,50
Child mortality rate-11,60
Water and Sanitation 99,5 699,54
Access to Information and Communications 55,3 1655,27
Personal Freedom and Choice 59,0 1358,99
Access to piped water1,00
Internet users0,59
Teen pregnancy -3,57
Access to improved sanitation facilities (sewerage)
1,00
Mobile telephone users0,91
Adults who feel good in your area0,82
Storm drain1,00
PC users0,57
Availability of parks44,69
Shelter and Public Services 72,1 1472,12
Health and Wellness 62,5 1862,52
Tolerance and Inclusion 41,9 1241,94
Qualitative housing deficit-0,06
Life expectancy73,50
Satisfaction with neighborly relations0,74
Quantitative housing deficit-0,03
Suicide rate -1,00
Feeling of discrimination-0,13
Housing saitsfaction0,90
Premature deaths from non-communicable diseases
-30,20
Sense of belonging0,77
Neighborhood satisfaction0,78
Physical activity rate0,18
Intra-family disputes-0,19
Social tolerance-0,43
Personal Safety 43,1 1943,13
Ecosystem Sustainability 67,1 567,11
Access to Advanced Education 49,0 1648,96
Personal Injury rate-347,38
Number of trees per person2,00
Quality of math education in High School 46,77
Homicide rate-45,70
Availability of public space1,00
Quality of language education in High School
50,07
Traffic deaths-22,35
Amount of recycled material5,08
Adults with incomplete higher education0,09
Alternative transportation-0,20
Adults with undergraduate degree0,20
40
CONCLUSIONS
o The SPI Bogota was designed to generate an actionable tool for public policies. It provides a new perspective for urban planning and social interventions.
o The SPI Bogota will be completely update every two years, and will provide an strong estimate every one year. The social progress map for 2015, using the biennial survey of culture 2015, will be published in early 2016.
o From 2009 to 2014, the localities of Bogota have witnessed an average increase of 6,6% in their social progress scores. Localities with lower levels of social progress in 2009 have systematically shown the higher increases in the last six years
o Social investments in the city should seek to improve human wellbeing particularly of citizens living in the City Centre (whose situation has worsened in the last six years) and in the South (where public policies appear to have had a positive impact).
o Major improvements are needed in the Opportunity dimension, especially in Personal Rights and Tolerance and Inclusion.
o Every locality also has its own challenges. Richest localities of the North should increase their capacity to transform economic development in social progress.
SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX BOGOTAMatthew Bishop, 23 November, 2015