Indicator – L10. Index of the diversity of the industrial base
Consultant's Initials: |
GSA |
Source: |
CCFM |
Identification No. in source: Use all refs: |
6.3.2 |
Class: |
Economic |
Recommendation (after field testing) Yes or no |
No |
Revised Indicator Suggested? # |
Box A:
Principle - Society accepts responsibility for sustainability.
Criterion- There is equitable access to and distribution of economic rents.
Indicator – Index of the diversity of the industrial base.
Box B: Definition:
The indicator is the percent of communities having a significant forestry component (heavily or moderately forest dependent) and where: (a) there is primary reliance on forestry (forestry dependent); (b) where another sector makes up at least 10% of the employment along with forestry dependence (dual sector dependent); or (c) where there is employment diversity in reliance in addition to forestry. Communities are heavily forest dependent if more than 50% of the economic base employment is accounted for by forest industries, and moderately forest dependent if they rely on the forestry sector for 10-50% of their economic base. The economic base is simply defined as total employment in the community, stratified into forestry and non-forestry sectors.
Box C: Attributes
Rated on a scale of 1-5, where 1=no/bad/unimportant and 5=yes/good/important
Precisely defined? (clear) |
4 |
Useable? |
3 |
||||||
Is it applicable to other areas/ecosystems? (robust) |
5 |
||||||||
Sensitive? |
4 |
||||||||
Easy to detect, record and interpret? |
4 |
||||||||
Is it applicable to all landowners? |
|||||||||
Yes |
|||||||||
No |
x |
||||||||
Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners. Explain any differences.
N/A
Box E: Overlap:
CIFOR: L6, 1.2.2
CIFOR – BAG: C3.1.4
CCFM: L8a, 5.3.2 (revised), "Employment of local population in forest
management";
L9, 6.3.1
Box F: Geo-Political Scale:
Global |
||
North America |
||
Intermountain West |
||
Study area |
X |
|
Tenure |
||
Site |
Notes:
This indicator is applied to human communities, which are included within the Study Area
Box G: Indicator Characteristics.
Diagnostic |
||
Predictive |
||
Both |
X |
Notes:
Clearly the indicator is diagnostic, but could also have limited predictive capability if time series trends are examined.
Box H: Indicator Function:
Structure |
||
Function/Process |
||
Composition |
||
Perturbation |
||
| Not Applicable | X |
Box I: Underlying Concepts:
This indicator differs from indicators L8a and L9 only by measuring the set of communities on a percentage basis rather than a count. It adds little beyond the contributions of L8a and L9.
Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management :
See indicators L8a and L9.
Box K: Measurement Methods:
See indicators L8a and L9.
Box L: Data Required:
See indicators L8a and L9.
Box M: Data Used for the North American Test :
See indicators L8a and L9.
Box N: Example Results :
See indicators L8a and L9.
Box O: Assessing the Practicality:
See indicators L8a and L9.
Box P: Assessing the Information Value :
See indicators L8a and L9.
Box Q: Overall assessment:
Rejected
Strengths:
1. It is relatively easy, inexpensive indicator to measure.
2. Indicates direct relevance of community employment to forest managemen
Weaknesses:
1. Is redundant to indicators L8a and L9.
Box R: Did you rewrite or revise to a new indicator. If so what?
No.
Box S: References:
See indicators L8a and L9.
Appendix:
Please record your notes on evaluating the indicator here:
N/A