Morice Land and Resource Management Plan


Opportunity Ranking Criteria



Download 1.06 Mb.
Page4/51
Date14.05.2017
Size1.06 Mb.
#18060
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   51

Opportunity Ranking Criteria

Prior to identifying community specific or enterprise level opportunities the Working Group developed an opportunity ranking criteria. The ranking criterion was used to prioritize opportunities within each sector. Opportunities were not ranked across sectors due to the interest in developing a diversified economy (i.e. a forestry related opportunity was not be ranked against a tourism opportunity and vice versa).


The goal of this exercise was to develop a process that would allow the group to be unbiased in assessing the relative impact or importance of an opportunity. As previously stated, the goal of the EDAP is to identify those opportunities in each sector that are able to create the greatest positive influence on the economy and provide a broad analysis of each. This information is intended to be used by the LRMP table during its decision making process.
The following steps were followed in creating the ranking criteria:


  1. Goals were identified for the EDAP (the Working Group identified the goals for economic development in the Morice).



  2. Goals were then categorized into logical groups. In most cases sub-categories were necessary to differentiate the intent of a specific goal(s).



  3. Grouping of goals were then refined to produce a generalized statement of what is to be achieved.



  4. For each category an indicator for each goal was developed (i.e. for employment one indicator was the number of jobs created by an opportunity).



  5. Each indicator was then given a measure of success (i.e. a measure of low may be less than ten for a goal of maintaining or improving the number of jobs in an area while a moderate level may be ten to fifty jobs).




  1. Finally, points were assigned to each category based on the measures determined by the group.

The Working Group identified the following goals:



  • To provide long term sustainability

  • Develop a training and educational base

  • Improve infrastructure for growth

  • Build confidence for investors

  • Develop local leaders in management

  • Promote supporting industries for the local forest sector

  • Maintain healthy sustainable communities

  • Diversify employment opportunities (small and large enterprises)

  • Have complete First Nations involvement

  • Maintain a healthy environment

  • Identify criteria and economic opportunities for success

  • Ensure land use decisions consider economic opportunities

  • Be consistent with community values and goals

  • Be economically and environmentally sustainable

  • Diversify the economy

Table 1 and Table 2 illustrate the refined goals and ranking criteria developed for this process.


Table 1. Goal Categories




CATEGORY

 

 

1

SUSTAINABILITY

a)

Environment (consumptive)

b)

Communities

2

INFRASTRUCTURE “use it or loose it”

a)

Future

b)

Present

3

EMPLOYMENT

a)

Quantity

b)

Quality (amount earned)

4

CONFIDENCE

a)

Zoning

b)

First Nations (impact to First Nations)

5

ENVIRONMENT (risk of impact)

6

BUSINESS

a)

Possible number of spin off businesses created

b)

Variety of businesses added

Table 2. Ranking Criteria

#

Category

Ranking

Value

Criteria

1

SUSTAINABILITY

 

 

 

a)

Environment (consumptive)

Low

1

High volume consumption versus carrying capacity of supply

 

 

Medium

2

Moderate volume consumption versus carrying capacity of supply

 

 

High

3

Low volume consumption versus carrying capacity of supply

 

 

 

 

 

b)

Communities

Low

1

Unstable development; possibility of success is uncertain

 

 

Medium

2

Moderately stable development; possibility of success is moderate




 

High

3

Stable development; possibility of success is high







 

 







INFRASTRUCTURE



 

Roads, Hydro, Housing, Health, Education, Finance (availability)

a)

Future

Low

1

Impact on 2 or less of the above infrastructure components

 

 

Medium

2

Impact on 3-4 of the above

 

 

High

3

Impact on 5-6 of the above

 

 

 

 

 

b)

Present

Low

1

Impact on 2 or less of the above infrastructure components

 

 

Medium

2

Impact on 3-4 of the above

 

 

High

3

Impact on 5-6 of the above

 

 

 

 

 

3

EMPLOYMENT

 

 

 

a)

Quantity

Low

1

Refer to attached employment chart

 



Medium

2

Refer to attached employment chart

 

 

High

3

Refer to attached employment chart

 

 

 

 

 

b)

Quality (amount earned)

Low

1

less than $30,000

 

 

Medium

2

$30,001 - $59,999

 

 

High

3

greater than $60,000

 

 

 

 

 




CONFIDENCE

 

 

 

a)

Zoning

Low

1

Cannot facilitate exclusive resource emphasis zoning

 

 

Medium

2

Could facilitate resource emphasis zoning

 

 

High

3

Could easily facilitate resource emphasis zoning

 

 

 

 

 

b)

First Nations

Low

 


1

 


Development affects identified important First Nation values, or

Development requires substantial negotiation before and or during the project viable and / or the negotiation process is problematic.



 

 

 

 

Medium

2

Development affects some identified First Nation values some negotiation as required during the project although the project is viable and or the negotiation process is cumbersome




 

High

 


3

 


Development affects no identified First Nations values, or

Development can proceed with minimal or no First Nation Consultation and/or agreement during the project and/or the negotiation process is straightforward and clear.






 

 

 

 

 

 

5

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Low

2

User defined

 

 

Medium

4

User defined

 

 

High

6

User defined

 

 

 

 

 

6

BUSINESS

 

 

 

a)

Possible # of spin off businesses

Low

1

2 or less

 

 

Medium

2

3 - 5

 

 

High

3

6 or more

 

 

 

 

 

b)

Variety of businesses added

Low

1

1 or less

 

 

Medium

2

2 - 4

 

 

High

3

4 or more

Due to the complexity of creating a rating system for environmental impact the Working Group decided to rate each opportunity based on their individual ideals of what impact an opportunity would have. A rating of high meant that an opportunity would have little or no impact on the environment. Conversely, an opportunity that had significant potential to impact the environment would be rated low.


Download 1.06 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   51




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page