Hi all, I have an off-topic question but I think it is a question that the professionals who use Arches deal with on a daily basis: How do you prioritize conservation projects for the sites that you are responsible for? I work at a municipal level and we have very limited budget to manage a set of publicly-owned sites, each of which faces a series of threats and requires various studies and interventions. Each site has its own group of advocates who believe it has priority over others. Up until now, we have been putting together list of all of our projects and prioritizing them on scale of 1 to 3, with 1 being most urgent. However, this is very subjective and I find myself not being able to justify the ratings with any solid evidence in most cases. That is why I was wondering if anyone else has a more robust and thorough prioritization scheme that takes into account things like public safety, loss of heritage fabric, project complexity, local capacity and ultimately return-on-investment.
Best regards, James -- -- To post, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]. For more information, visit https://groups.google.com/d/forum/archesproject?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Arches Project" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
