Final report - Integrated Land Management Bureau

Supported by the
literature
Practical to measure
Valid measures of Schedule C and G objectives
Figure 1. Selection of human well-being indicators for the North and Central Coast is a balance
between matching the literature on human well-being and choosing indicators that are practical to
measure, while being valid measures of Schedules C and G objectives.
In light of diverse academic views and the volume of literature on human well-being, it
was impossible (and not the intent) to resolve academic debates in this limited project.
The goal of this project was to identify what indicators would be appropriate on the North
and Central Coast and how they could be measured. This represents one approach to
balancing practicality with academics.
It is hoped that the indicators could eventually provide a succinct, manageable scorecard
based on the science of human well-being that would serve as a focal point for strategy
development and evaluation across the communities and organizations on the coast. In
the authors’ views, choosing a set of indicators and starting to use it for community
development is equally as important as spending time seeking the cutting edge “theorybased”
approach. Trying to use the most conclusive study on human well-being will be a
continual catch-up game. It is most important to take some indicators that fit the selected
criteria and begin to take action in communities.
1.2 THE PLAN AREAS
The North and Central Coast plan areas (Figures 2 and 3) are sparsely populated with
fewer than 21,000 people, many of whom are First Nations. The North Coast plan area
includes the municipality of Prince Rupert (14,000 population), as well as First Nations
and other communities. The Central Coast plan area includes the communities such as
Bella Bella, Shearwater, Klemtu, Bella Coola Valley and remote First Nation and other
communities. Natural resources, including fisheries and forestry, play a primary role in
the economy in the plan areas.
6