Final report - Integrated Land Management Bureau

that show links between strategies designed to induce change and desired long term
outcomes of the strategies. They are commonly used by program planners and evaluators
to show how interventions lead to short term (interim) changes which, in turn, lead to
longer term changes. Although they are typically drawn as linear charts (from left to
right), impacts of strategies are rarely that simple or linear, and it is recognized that
circular feedback loops exist in reality. The logic models allow program planners and
evaluators to measure short-term changes as proxies for longer term desired changes
when it is not possible to measure longer-term changes. Indicators are typically
quantifiable measures of the accomplishment of the short and long term outcomes.
2.3 STEP 3: ESTABLISHING SELECTION CRITERIA AND REVIEWING
SCHEDULE C AND G INDICATORS
Drawing on the literature on evaluation and monitoring as well as information in the
Request for Proposal, and our own judgment, we assessed the appropriateness of
Schedule C and G and other HWB indicators for measuring human well-being using the
following nine screening questions (selection criteria):
1. Is the indicator consistent with and supported by the current literature on human
well-being?
2. Are there logical links between the indicator and the objective it purports to
measure? (Is the indicator a valid measure of the objectives of Schedules C and
G?)
3. Is the indicator comparable over time? Are there other indicators better suited for
temporal comparisons?
4. Is the indicator relevant to both First Nations and non-First Nations populations
where it doesn’t stipulate one or the other?
5. Are there existing data at a local geographic scale?
6. Are there existing data where problems of overlapping boundaries can be
overcome, if overlapping exists?
7. Where there are no existing data available at the appropriate scale and boundary
overlap is a problem, is primary data collection logistically possible and
affordable to measure this indicator?
8. Is the desirable direction of the indicator obvious (up or down)?
9. Is the indicator sensitive to change in the outcome, but relatively unaffected by
other changes?
Some existing Schedule C and G indicators “passed the test,” (fit the criteria) and in other
cases we chose to recommend an alternative indicator for measuring the Schedule C and
G objective. The justification for our recommendations for specific indicators is found in
Section 5.1.
2.4 STEP 4: SELECTING ADDITIONAL INDICATORS NOT ADDRESSED
IN SCHEDULES C AND G
The literature review revealed that there were three components of HWB that were not
addressed by Schedule C and G objectives: health, education, and social process. We
identified possible indicators for these three areas based on the literature. The process of
10