Final report - Integrated Land Management Bureau

that indicators answer two fundamental questions: “how will we know success or
achievement when we see it?” and “are we moving toward achieving our desired
outcomes?” They say that the selection of indicators has two dimensions that must be
considered: technical and policy. Indicators must be technically feasible and address the
desired objective. In addition, they must consider the context of the policy arena. In other
words, if there are policies that hinder or work against the desired objective that the
indicators measures, then the indicator is not likely to be relevant or useful.
While this report provides an overview of frameworks for human well-being, any one of
the five components of human well-being could be explored in greater depth and become
a comprehensive study on its own. This report does not discuss strategies to affect human
well-being; that too could be a stand-alone project. For each indicator that would require
primary data collection, a research plan, including decisions on questionnaire design such
as scale to be used (i.e. nominal, ordinal), sample frame selection, acceptable confidence
and error levels, and coding and analysis methods will need to be outlined. Costs
suggested are only broad estimates; actual costs can be more closely estimated when a
research plan is developed.
In many ways, communities of the North and Central Coast of BC are similar to other
natural resource-dependent communities on the west coast of North America whose
members aim to develop strategies to improve and measure human well-being. One
author of this report worked during the 1990s in the communities of Mill City, and Gates,
Oregon which faced social and economic upheaval related to reductions in timber harvest
levels on federal forest land. In their attempt to address social and economic issues,
community members looked to the current literature for help in selecting strategies and
measures for improving social and economic conditions in their communities. They
found a study conducted by the Heartland Center for Leadership Development in
Nebraska called “20 Clues to Community Survival” (Luther and Wall 1998) based on
case study research of communities that had undergone similar transitions. The Center
found that there were common factors across communities that had “survived and
thrived” and common factors among those that had not. The findings were synthesized by
the Heartland Center into 20 key indicators of community resiliency (Luther and Wall
1998, found at http://www.heartlandcenter.info/clues.htm). This research-based list of
indicators was used by community members in Mill City and Gates as a scorecard for
tracking improvements over time – they wrote grant proposals citing this research and
developed strategies to improve upon the indicators. It was posted on bulletin boards
throughout the communities. It helped focus community development efforts. It gave the
community organizations a manageable list of indicators to track over time to assess the
level of success in efforts to improve conditions in the communities.
Significantly more research on community and human well-being has been conducted
since the Heartland study was released. There is now an overwhelming body of literature
that addresses the determinants of health, economics, community and individual
resiliency, and other factors of human well-being, including many focused on resourcedependent
communities. There are dozens of studies that offer indicators of well-being
and ways of measuring it. Additionally, there is significant debate among researchers
4