Purpose: Facilitate a value weighting exercise with the parties identified in Tool 5a.
Refer to: Tool 4a, Tool 4b, Tool 4c
Used in: Tool 6a
Guiding Question: What is the relative importance of the changes?
Step 1: Fill out the end benefits/outcomes of your CBWM that you identified in Tool 4b.
Step 2: Use Tool 4a to outline the baseline measures of each end benefit before the CBWM was put into place.
Step 3: Describe the change that has occurred after the program (Tool 4a) and how much this change can be attributed to the program (Tool 4b).
Step 4: Describe the short-term change (first five years) after the CBWM has been implemented. What positive, measurable changes can/have been observed?
Step 5: Describe the long-term change (after year 5). What do you hope/know will be the long-term impact of the CBWM?
Step 6: Identify the change you deem the most important, ranking it #1. Rank the rest of the rows accordingly from the second most important #2, and so on.
Step 7: For the highest ranked benefit, assign a weight of 100. Fill out the weight scores for the remaining benefits (rows), relative to #1 to rank their comparative importance. Note that only the #1 rank can have a weight of 100.
Considering the effects of time
Think back to Tool 4c where you assessed the effect of time on the benefits from your CBWM program. In this exercise, short and long term change are more stretched out in years, but the notion of delayed and drop off effects still stand. Considering time effects when ranking and weighting the benefits is important, as different stakeholders or partners will have different short and long term priorities.
Example
Table 12a: Value Weigth Generation Example
| 1. End Benefits | 2. Baseline (without the CBWM program)(Description/Measures) | 3. Change Attributed to Program (Description/Measures) | 4. Short Term Change Attributed to CBWM Program (Description/Measures) | 5. Long Term Change Attributed to CBWM Program (Description/Measures) | 6. Rank#1 is most important | 7. Weight100=most important1=least important |
| Peace of Mind | Most residents concerned, unknown H20 quality(see survey) | 60% | All residents feel safe and confident with recreational H20 standards consistently met(see survey) | Behavioural changes that reflect resident’s relationship with water quality to reduce pollution. | 1 | 100 |
| Improved natural recreational experience | 20% below similar parks with unknown water quality | 40% | Steady source of income for parks that can be relied upon | Overtime park income fluctuates due to socioeconomic factors. | 3 | 20 |
| Ecological Health | Low = diminished aquatic biodiversity with increasing invasive species | 50% | High = balanced aquatic biodiversity, with thriving populations of native species | Ecosystem becomes more stable and resilient. | 2 | 80 |
The Seventh Generation Principle
The Seventh Generation Principle is a Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) philosophy that the decisions we make today should result in a sustainable world seven generations into the future, and many Indigenous Peoples around the world live by similar concepts. Meaningful relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups should be forged with the Seventh Generation Principle in mind, but in practice stakeholders and partners may have different long and short term priorities. Value weighting can help to reinforce the Seventh Generation Principle within the decision making process.