Ethical risk quadrant — field scoring instrument

Proposal name (optional)

I

Monetisation reading

y-axis · 0–5

—

Choose the description that best matches this proposal

0 — No monetisation No revenue is generated by, or sought from, the area; management is funded entirely independently of any activity taking place there — the "zero tourism, zero profit" end of the continuum. 1 — Incidental monetisation Small revenue arises as a byproduct of access (entrance permits, research fees) but isn't pursued as an objective, and is negligible against the area's operating budget. 2 — Ancillary cost recovery Revenue is deliberately generated, through non-consumptive access such as tourism, permits, or curio sales, but is oriented toward covering the direct costs of managing the area; growth in revenue is not itself a goal. 3 — Revenue-oriented access Monetisation moves beyond cost recovery: non-consumptive activity is actively marketed and scaled to produce surplus income, though the area's resources are not themselves extracted or transformed. 4 — Consumptive or extractive revenue Income depends on regulated use of the area's resources — permitted culling, licensed harvesting, resource extraction under limits — rather than access alone; what was previously unpriced is actively priced. 5 — Revenue-maximising financialisation Monetisation becomes the organising objective, approaching the "if it pays, it stays" end of the continuum: commercial activity is scaled without an operative ceiling, and the area's value is treated primarily as a financial asset.

II

Stewardship reading

x-axis · 0–5

—

Choose the description that best matches this proposal

0 — Stewardship is the organising principle Economic activity, where present, is thoroughly subordinate to enforceable ecological, social, and intergenerational obligations — the area is managed as something held in trust. 1 — Stewardship constrains activity in practice A plurality of stakeholders meaningfully shapes the decision, and at least one binding mechanism (legal protection, an enforceable limit, a community veto) would actually stop an economically attractive but harmful action. 2 — Broadening but non-binding Multiple stakeholders are genuinely consulted, but nothing stops economic interest from overriding them when the two conflict — commitments are voluntary, not enforceable. 3 — Narrow stewardship, easily overridden One consideration dominates (often a flagship species or headline revenue figure); other stakeholders — surrounding communities, non-charismatic species, future generations — are absent or symbolic. 4 — Nominal stewardship Ecological or community considerations appear in documentation but play no real role in the decision — nothing would change if they were deleted. 5 — No active stewardship Decisions proceed with no reference to ecological, social, or intergenerational responsibility. The area is functionally abandoned, or economic interest proceeds entirely unchecked.

x — · y —

answer both sections to plot a reading

Logged readings

Loading saved readings…